Media Matters Not – Page 15

Hinderaker Counters Coleman Countering PFA

13. February 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: General, GWOT, Iraq, Media Matters Not

Over at PowerLine, John Hinderaker issues an extended retort to The Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman’s attack on the Progress for America sponsored Midwest Heroes ad, in support of the Iraq war.

Hinderacker does much to set the record straight. Coleman is an insufferable idiotarian, who shouldn’t even be given the time of day. However, his Star Tribune column gives him a rather large soapbox, and his factual errors and outright lies must be addressed.

However, Hinderaker frames his criticism of Coleman as an attack on the free speech rights of Lt. Col. Bob Stephenson, Staff Sgt. Marcellus Wilks, and Captain Mark Weber – the three Iraq vet “Midwest Heroes” featured in the ad – alluding, of course, to the over-the-top response of radical Islamists to the notorious “Mohammed” cartoons. In so doing, he degrades his entire argument.

Were Coleman to be threatening the beheading of the three servicemen, or the principals of PFA, the association would be valid. Coleman is doing nothing more than casting his lot in the free market of ideas. However, by playing the Freedom of Speech card, Hinderaker engages in the same rhetorical trickery as Coleman. This is shameful; he’s normally much better than that.

Hat Tip: InstaPundit

Counterpoints On The Mohammed Cartoons

12. February 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: General, Media Matters Not

Before condemning the US MSM over the Mohammed cartoon issue, we should take these counterpoints into account:

Currently, Fox News, ABC News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Sun, and two other dead-tree pubs I can’t recall currently, HAVE published the cartoons.
As journalists, we have a responsibility to act both as filters and aggregators. I very much believe in all the news that’s fit to print – much more so than we report, you decide.
It would be both impossible for me, and damn boring for our readers, for me to post every factoid that comes across my desk. So I try to limit it to what I think might be valuable, as well as provide some context and analysis, in the hopes of providing a richer and more balanced worldview to those with far less time to devote to information gathering and processing as I do. In the case of those cartoons, in my opinion, most of them aren’t worth the column-inches they use up.
And there is a place here for courtesy and consideration. There are certain of those cartoons – most particularly the one of Mohammed with a bomb on his head, which may be offensive to ordinary Muslims – not so much for the mere fact that they are a depiction of The Prophet, but the blanket pejorative nature. I wouldn’t publish those either.

In summary, so long as each individual/organization has the freedom to set their own standards of both quality and decency, we still have a free press. Unfortunately, those same individuals/organizations are also free to be mediocre, as well as free to be boorish and insensitive. However, as Thomas Jefferson said: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Update: The cartoons also appear in The Weekly Standard (which, like Fox News, is owned by News Corp.).

Memo: Free Press

11. February 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: European Disunion, General, GWOT, Media Matters Not, Pajama Game

To: Major Newspapers, Broadcast TV News Channels, NPR and especially (but not limited to) the ever lugubrious Daniel Schoor (What? He is still a practicing journalist? Who’d have thought it?)
Re: “Free Press” & The Affair of the Danish Cartoons

1. As far as American newsprint and broadcast television is concerned, the phrase “freedom of the press” is from this day now enshrined in my favorite set of viciously skeptical quote-marks. The affair of the Danish Cartoons, and their non-appearance in all but a handful of newspapers has put the lie to every bit of lip-service ever paid to the notion that the American people had a right to know… had an absolute right, enshrined in the foundations of our very Republic to know… well, whatever it was that would goose the ratings, or boost circulation this week… A right that every journalist would fearlessly defend, with every fiber of his principled, journalistic being. Oops, there seems to be a little contradiction there. Principled… journalist… now there is a concept worn to tatters by this little international imbroglio, especially after Eason-gate, Rather-Gate and all the other tedious-gates. It’s pretty obvious that in this case, especially, mainstream media couldn’t defend the concept of a free press against a troop of marauding Brownie Girl Scouts, not when the threat is something a little more substantial than a couple of rabid letters to the editor and maybe a dozen or two cancelled subscriptions, some yanked adverts and maybe… in the case of a really egregious offense… a consumer boycott.

2. Thanks for all the ringing endorsements of principle, though — they made inspiring reads when a journo went to jail to protect a source, or a loud-mouthed bully of a politician ran off at the mouth. And to be fair there were just enough brave, and risk taking journalists who lived up to it, and sometimes died for it. It does look like they were the exception; most of the journalistic crowd seems only able to cope with jail food for a couple of days, and go on the Today Show to bask in the warm glow of peer approval for weeks afterwards.

3. My own hometown newspaper has a rather schizo take on it all: the two local cartoonists are riled and indignant, and very much in favor of publishing the original twelve Danish cartoons, but the paper has also rolled out two members of the local Muslim community to lecture us all about sensitivity and insult to Islam and otherwise wrap us in the inoffensive warm swaddling quilt of the whole multi-cultural experience. Dear no, the great unwashed general public must never be offended or upset, never given a chance to look at the facts and make up their own mind, and the ever-seething Muslim Street must never be given an excuse to torch another street full of cars, or a handy embassy. Not even if enough people without internet access are now curious about what in heck the fuss is all about. No, no, no; the cartoons are too vile, to insulting. Mustn’t be seen, musn’t have the delicate sensibilities be offended… just take our word that the 12 cartoons are that horrible!

4. 4. Funny, that: the tender sensibilities of Muslims taking offense at something or other, twice a day and three times on Fridays over matters that run the gamut from the real, through the exaggerated and terminating in the completely imaginary. However, this well known and often demonstrated propensity for over-the-top outrage didn’t stop any Western newspaper from publishing the Abu Graib pictures, or the bogus Koran-flushing story. All that sent the Muslim Street onto high seeth mode for simply months, without shaking a particle of our mainstream media’s devotion towards the general public’s right to know. Repercussions from this adherence to principle landed on everyone else but the gentlemen of the press. One might be forgiven at this point for suspecting that press deference to Muslim sensibilities in this case is directly proportional to a well-established tendency for the offended to directly underline their unhappiness with sharp knives, exploding garments, creative arson, and fatwas, along with the more customary threats of lawsuits and consumer boycotts. It all depends, as my mother used to say, upon whose ox has been gored, and on this occasion, the major media’s ox has been well and truly gored.

5. Myself, I have begun to wonder if major media’s almost hysterical insistence on the original 12 Danish Cartoons being so vile, so insulting and hurtful as to be unworthy of print space or airtime isn’t a trifle self-serving. I have seen them, (and linked to them and put up one on this website) as has practically anyone who has internet access, a bit of curiosity and the ability to do a simple search. It’ll be very hard for an old-line news organization who has stuck to the party line about the offensive nature of them to actually put them out there, in print or on the air, and have all those people who still take them seriously realize in actuality, they are pretty mild… about one half step more cutting than “Family Circle” or “Dagwood & Blondie”. There would be a great many people reading the morning paper, or watching prime time news in that case, scratching their heads and thinking “That is what they got so upset about?” A dozen bland little sketches, only two of which had any satiric bite at all— all the fuss was about that? Oh, no best keep the cover locked into place… after all, the public doesn’t have to know everything. Best let them go on believing that main line media does really believe in freedom of the press.

6. Unless believing in it really means a bit of real danger and risk. Myself, the next time I hear someone pontificating away on the awesome responsibilities involved in upholding the “freedom of the press”… and they are from a newspaper which refused to run the Danish Cartoons, or a television station which refused to air them, citing “community sensitivities” or “deference to religious feelings” or whatever the sad excuse du jour is…. I shall laugh and laugh and laugh.

Sincerely
Sgt. Mom

Danish Cartoons, Redoux

06. February 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: Ain't That America?, General, General Nonsense, GWOT, Media Matters Not, sarcasm, The Funny

Amusingly, that lugubrious old talking prune, NPR’s Daniel Shorr was coming out on the side of being all sensitive and being responsible about “using the power of the press” as regards the Matter of the Danish Cartoons. (Doesn’t that sound like a very dull Sherlock Holmes adventure, or the worst name for a war since the “War of Jenkins’ Ear”?) Just like the pet professor of international relations whom my local paper keeps on hand to drivel on about the Moslem world and international relations, and how the US must…must…zzzzz… oh, sorry. Dozed off there for a moment. I do that when reading the gentleman’s editorials, but so do probably most of his students.

Anyway, predictable, dull, predictable… oops, did I say that already? Anyway, both these prize examples of overpaid old media had pretty much the same take… the cartoons were horrible! Vile! Insulting! And the major media had done a Good Thing by not putting them out in front of us proles so we could make up our own mind… which is that they are only a little more tame than a Dick and Jane grade school reader. Poor, innocent and clueless Mr. Shorr also alledged that said cartoons were very difficult to find and view… at which statement I can only shake my head in pity and hope that someone in the NPR studio will either enlighten him about this internet and search engine thingy, or hand him a box of Kleenex to wipe off the senile drool.

And besides, if the Danish Cartoons were the far end in vile insult to Islam in general, then a great many parties are in for a most awful shock. Oh, yes, in accordance with my call to comic arms of several years ago, we have just begun to take the piss, point the finger, and laugh, laugh, laugh.

(The Dutch website would, of course be far more amusing to those who actually can speak Dutch, but some of the entries are in English… and some of them are quite understandible, as well as being not work-safe, in the strict meaning of the word. I really have to admire the mad Photoshop skilz, though. Thanks to Rantburg and Silent Running, and the Instapundit, whose thunderous tread shakes the whole blog-world.)

Women in the Military – A Story That Can’t Help

06. February 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: GWOT, Media Matters Not, Military, My Head Hurts, War

Greyhawk over at Mudville Gazette tells us about an interesting story that is no doubt supposed to make us even more upset about the war:

The latest Iraq war urban legend: Several female service members have died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day due to fear of being raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women’s latrine after dark.

Say what you will about the story (be sure to read the whole thing). Here’s what is bothering me:

Why it matters: Because the Left believes what they’re told to believe. Random Lefty blog response via technorati:

Jill at Feministe

Female soldiers in Iraq are having to make an impossible choice: Risk being raped , or risk dying of dehydration. Many of them have ended up dead.

Nicole in London: Tales of Los Angeles Expat

If I get one comment from ANYONE saying that this proves that women don’t belong in the army. . . Grrrrrr.

And that last comment gets to my point.

Greyhawk pretty much shreds the story (now being perpetuated by Col Janis Karpinski, of Abu Ghraib fame) to bits. If it were true, it would be a horrible, horrible thing, and all of us at the Brief would be outraged. But considering how “shred-able” it is, wouldn’t the folks on the left want to tread pretty lightly before giving the “No Women In Combat” supporters ammunition like this?

(Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner)

When the Going Gets Wierd

29. January 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: Ain't That America?, Domestic, General, Media Matters Not, That's Entertainment!

The weird turn pro, and apparently write a memoir about it, which is all very nice when it sells a LOT of copies, and the writer becomes FAMOUS and sells a mega-jiga-million copies, and everyone remembers that they knew you when… maybe. Journalistic fabrication is so last year (Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke, whatsisface at the NYT), the current flave of the moment must be the memoir…. One’s own life, but with with improvements.

The fun begins when everyone who knew you when— the people next door, brothers and sisters, employers, co-workers, ex-spouses, friends and former friends score a copy and begin to realize that there is a whole ‘nother reality reflected there, one with which they were completely unacquainted. So having the Oprah Winfrey/James Frey imbroglio all this week— hell, even Cpl./Sgt. Blondie has heard of it, and she is more of an HGTV fan than anything. The lesson ought to be for memoirists to linger meaningfully in the general vicinity of verifiable facts, either that or wait to write it all when everyone else is dead and can’t argue the point with you. If you really can’t wait that long, perhaps it would be less embarrassing to just call it fiction, loosely based on your own life…. Even if the stuff that really happens is sometimes stranger than you can ever make up.

Then, of course, on the second page of the paper this morning, there is a story about another writer— somewhat less well known since Oprah didn’t personally have to rip him a new one on national television— who wasn’t a Native American at all. What is it with wanting to be a Native American, all that mysticism and wilderness wisdom? And Timothy Barris wasn’t the first, (Grey Owl, anyone?) only being a porn writer may have been a little less embarrassing than the resume and club membership of this best-selling but unfortunately fraudulent Indian. And Carlos Castenada and Rigoberta Menchu still have passionate defenders willing to deny or discount certain uncomfortable findings.

Really, I feel quite sorry for people who begin with a little fib, a touch of exaggeration and eventually wind up believing it… some of them do not take contradiction well, and it is way too late in the game to get a writer and memoirist like Lillian Hellman a little painful cross-examination (But Mary McCarthy tried, anyway.)

Fraudulent memoirists like Frey and Barris may be a passing evil, best selling or not. Grey Owl and Asa Carter, although not as advertised, were possessed of a lovely and sympathetic writing style and may even have done good with their output, in the long run. But Menchu and Hellman, with the deeply politicized aspect to their writings and public personas probably have not. After contemplating how their books inflamed or warped the perceptions of certain public issues, it is a positive relieve to contemplate Ern Malley and Penelope Ashe, two last literary frauds which were done for no more reason than to make a point, and for their perpetrators to have a little fun putting one over; A self-consciously literary magazine called “Angry Penguins” is just begging to be sent up, and as for “Naked Came the Stranger”… it was proved in 1969, and for a hundred years before and ever since, that trash with a naked woman on the front cover will sell.

(PS My own memoir is still for sale, with the following corrections noted: Mom says the Toby-dog got stuck on the fence in the morning, not evening… and Pippy says that her rabbits’ name was Bernadette Bunny. Not just Bunny.
Please buy a copy! I had a small fenderbender with the VEV, which broke the front grille and both headlights, and the insurance company probably won’t pay for anything but junking the VEV entirely, so I am having to pay for all the purely cosmetic repairs out of pocket! Thanks!)

Piniata of the Month

26. January 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: Ain't That America?, General, Media Matters Not, Rant, sarcasm

So, is this Mr. Stein, of the LA Times the designated piñata of the month, for the blogosphere to freely thwack, belittle and otherwise abuse? Now that the joys of flogging “Professor”* Ward Churchill are a thing of the past, we have all apparently moved on. I as usual, am late to the all-blog pile on, since the by now the egregious Mr. Stein has been filleted, sliced and diced by sharper minds and more accomplished writers than myself. I just did not receive the Dark Lord Rove’s latest memo, ‘kay?

*** pouting prettily***

I just must not be on His Darknesses’ primary AIG distribution list. (Quick, can anyone tell me, are we an army of digital brownshirts this month, or just an electronic lynch mob? I hate to be inappropriately outfitted; my jackboots are this very week out being new-soled, but the pitchfork and torch are ready and waiting…. Oh, thanks. Lynch mob it is then… right. Thanks for the light. Non-smokers are always short of a light, have you ever noticed?)

Frankly, Mr. Stein is pitiful meat, after the never-ending buffet that was the many-talented Professor Churchill. The only thing to marvel at is that what used to be a reputable newspaper paid him (presumably a lot of money) for these vapid dribblings. I would rather advise everyone to stand well back, point a finger at him and laugh, long and heartily. Please, for the love of heaven, don’t stuff his email inbox with any more flaming communications. We’re just setting ourselves up to listen to him whine, with lip all a tremble, about those horrid hostile hate-mongers, when all he did was innocently mosey down the lane, excercising his rights of free speech, man!

And don’t, please don’t write a righteously wrathful letter to the Times, threatening to cancel your subscription — even if you are really one of those rapidly diminishing number who actually have a subscription. For the love of all dead fish and bottoms of parrot-cages in the world, something has to serve as wrap and liner! A newspaper is supposed to be representative of the community it serves, after all, and the management just might realize that the whiney, insular yuppie twat demographic is way over- represented in their newsroom/editorial staff, and fire his clueless ass. Thereupon, he would slink off to work for Pacifica Radio, or the sort of extremely judgmental lefty local alternative free paper almost entirely supported by ad revenue from gentleman’s clubs, alternative lifestyle bars and pathetically awful personals… but before he did, we would be treated to Mr. Stein wobbling all over NPR and others as a martyr to free speech. I have a low nausea threshold, and I would far rather keep him where we can point to him and giggle, heartlessly.

After all, he didn’t want to advise spitting on military personnel returning from a war zone. Which, I guess, is progress of a sort.

PS: Cpl/Sgt. Blondie finds it awesomely incredible that he knows no military people first hand. It sort of reminds her, says she, of the kids in her 6th grade class in Ogden, UT, the ones who had never, ever been beyond the state line, or even out of the city limits, and were absolutely boggled to discover that she had been born in Japan, and lived in Greece and Spain for most of her life after that. She advises that Mr. Stein get in his car, and drive south for a little bit, to Oceanside, or San Diego. He will meet a lot of military people there, just by hanging around.

* As always, viciously skeptical quote marks

Later: Problem preventing comments from being posted is fixed. Comment away! – Sgt. Mom

Blatant Censorship At The Beeb

16. January 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: European Disunion, General, Media Matters Not, Politics

This from Paul Marks at Samizdata:

However, I was surprised as the editor started a pro Bush story of how he had met the President some time ago and…

Then the BBC suddenly went off the air. The broadcast of the show started again when the story was over. At the end of the programme the BBC blamed “technical difficulties” for the break in transmission.

So I listened to the repeat of the show (today Saturday the 14th of January) in order to hear the editor’s story of his meeting with President Bush. It was cut out of the programme – even the start of the story that had been broadcast on Friday night. It seems that the BBC will not tolerate any pro-Bush comment.

As the BBC is agency of the British government, I think we have a diplomatic issue here.

Paper of Record Seeks Military Expertise

15. January 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: Media Matters Not

OK. Really, they just lack military expertise. See here.

I’d like to think I wouldn’t have made this mistake, but I can’t say for sure. Nonetheless, I’m not publishing a nationally read newspaper.

It should be noted that there is a lot of discussion at the Hit and Run post about just how off the Times was and whether it even mattered. I’d like to think that precision and accuracy ought to matter to a paper with the Times’ readership. Heck, they ought to matter to any journalist period.

(Hat tip: Instapundit)

Nothing New Under the Sun

05. January 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: Domestic, General, Media Matters Not, Rant, That's Entertainment!

I really can’t think of anything more trenchant to add to the debate over the West Virginia mining disaster mass-media spazz-out than what Don Henley sang, some years ago.

“I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something, something I can use
People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry

Well, I could’ve been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don’t have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear, give us dirty laundry

Kick ’em when they’re up, kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up, kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up, kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up, kick ’em all around

We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5
She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It’s interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet?
You know the boys in the newsroom got a running bet
Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry

You don’t really need to find out what’s going on
You don’t really want to know just how far it’s gone
Just leave well enough alone, keep your dirty laundry

(chorus)

Dirty little secrets, dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybody’s pie
Love to cut you down to size, we love dirty laundry

We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing
When it’s said and done, we haven’t told you a thing
We all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry!”

Well, that and go watch “Network” one more time….

Poll Shows Drop In Military Support For Bush

02. January 2006 · Comments Off · Categories: General, Media Matters Not, Military, Politics

This from NPR’s All Things Considered:

A new poll by the Army Times Publishing Company, to be released Monday, shows a drop in support for President Bush and his conduct of the war in Iraq. The poll was sent to thousands of active duty military subscribers of the publisher’s newsweeklies, including the Army Times.

They link to a podcast of the interview with Army Times’ senior managing editor Robert Hodierne. But I’m going to wait for the print story, which doesn’t seem to have been released yet. I want to see the particular questions asked, and the responses. Because, as we all know, support for mister Bush among the military, or any other group, hinges on far more things than the administration’s handling of the GWOT.

People Of The Year

18. December 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: General, Media Matters Not

Michelle Malkin wants everyone to tell Time what they think of their “People Who Mattered” choices. Well, I’ve been telling Time that for at least two decades – by not buying their magazine.

Honestly, I can’t understand the consternation in the blogosphere over this annual Time “Person of the Year” edition. Some saying that Time was trying to be People or US. Well folks, here’s a newsflash: Time has a long history of “Person of the Year” choices which had emphasized celebrity over substance, and has been punctuated by some real boners, including Hitler and Stalin (twice).

I do agree though, that Time should have followed in their footsteps of 1956 (Hungarian Patriot), and chosen the brave people of Iraq, Lebanon, and Ukraine.

Cory Maye Summary

14. December 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Drug Prohibition, Media Matters Not

Radley Balko has posted a summary of what he knows, to date, on the Cory Maye murder case. If you’ve been following this, and you should be, this is a must read. Because, as Radley states, many errors have crept into the story, as it’s made its way around the blogosphere. Stephen Gordon is also making an effort to keep the facts in order.

In other news, CBS has picked up the story. But so far, only to the extent of following the blogs. There’s also a passing mention in Slate, but only relative to a Tookie Williams story. A Google news search shows no other MSM interest, as yet.

Playing Fast And Loose With The Facts

12. December 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Drug Prohibition, Media Matters Not

If you haven’t been following Radley Balko’s seminal investigative series on the murder trial of Cory Maye, you really should. In his interview with the prosecutor today, I get the distinct impression McDonald is playing fast and loose with the facts, just hoping Balko will go away.

This is also another incidence where the blogosphere is way out in front of the mainstream media. Stay the course, Radley. Perhaps you’ll be the first blogger to win a Pulitzer.

Iraq Polls Explained

04. December 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Iraq, Media Matters Not, Politics

Almost any political debate has an element of “dueling citations”, where each party will come up with a brace of “recognized experts” – each with their own analysis of the matter at hand. And those experts will generally spout the results of some survey, or collection of surveys, in an effort to give their argument some gravitas.

However, on matters of public policy, surveys of the general public will frequently diverge widely in their results. And particularly partisan experts can then pick and choose those surveys which tend to reinforce their preconceived opinions. This is nowhere more true than on matters concerning Iraq.

It then becomes necessary for the debater to go to the rigor of critiquing the surveys themselves. Well, if the expert even cites what survey he/she is relying upon for the information (frequently not the case in brief op-ed pieces), the debater is lucky if the information source even makes details of their surveys available to those other than paid subscribers to their service. Then there’s the matter of actually dissembling the raw data and techniques – a bit of real drudgery, even for those of us with the skills to do it.

Well, for the past year or so, Mark Blumenthal, an opinion poll wonk, has been putting out a blog, Mystery Pollster, which gets to the bottom of these things for us. I, for one, couldn’t be more happy about it. In a post from a few days ago, he goes after the recent RT Strategies poll of public opinion relative to the Iraq War. This is quite extended, for a blog post, as Mark goes into excruciating scope and detail. But he writes at a level accessible to the average lay political blog reader.

I’ll just excerpt a particularly “meaty” piece here:

When pollsters move beyond general ratings to more specific questions about policy – as we do in almost every public political poll – we move to shakier ground. Here Americans often lack preexisting attitudes, yet most will work to answer our questions, often forming opinions on the spot based on the text of the question. When that happens, responses can be very erratic and contradictory across polls. Very small variations in wording, the number of answer choices offered or the order of the questions can result in big and often surprising differences in the results.

With that in mind, consider the three RT Strategies questions:

Thinking about the war in Iraq, when Democratic Senators criticize the President’s policy on the war in Iraq, do you believe it HELPS the morale of our troops in Iraq or HURTS the morale of our troops in Iraq? (IF HELPS/HURTS, ASK:) And do you believe it (HURTS/HELPS) morale A LOT or just SOME

44% hurts a lot
26% hurts some
6% helps some
7% helps a lot
17% not sure

When Democrats criticize the President’s policy in Iraq, do you believe they are (ROTATE) Criticizing the President’s policy because they believe their criticisms will help the United States’ efforts in Iraq, OR, Criticizing the President’s policy to gain a partisan political advantage?

31% believe will help
51% to gain advantage
6% some of both (volunteered)
6% neither (volunteered)
7% not sure

And thinking about the future of our policies in Iraq, do you believe the U.S. military should…. (ROTATE FIRST TWO, ALWAYS ASK "Set a fixed timetable" last) Withdraw our troops immediately, regardless of the impact OR Withdraw our troops as the Iraqi government and military meet specific goals and objectives OR Set a fixed publicly available timetable for withdrawal.

16% withdraw immediately
49% withdraw when goals met
30% set fixed timetable
3% none (volunteered)
2% not sure

A few reactions: First, all three of these questions fall into that second category of issues about which many Americans appear to lack preexisting attitudes. Non-attitudes are most evident on the morale question (something that Armando at DailyKos picked up on). The telltale clue is that 17% were completely unable to answer the question, a sure sign that many more came up with an answer on the spot. The fact that nearly a third chose one of the softer "some" categories (26% hurts morale "some," 6% helps "some") is consistent with that argument. Also consider the respondent who believes such criticism neither hurts nor helps troop morale, but does not realize that "neither" is an o[o[p]tion. Odds are good they will end up in the "hurts a little" category.

On the partisan advantage question, nearly one in five respondents (19%) could not choose between the two offered answer categories. Finally, for reasons that I’ll discuss below, I’d argue that the large number of respondents in the middle category of the future policy question (49%) suggests that it was an attractive choice for those respondents who were simply not sure how to answer.

Now MP is not averse to survey questions that offer new information and push respondents a bit to see where they might stand in debates they have not followed closely. And in this case, the results of the RT "morale" and "criticism" questions are more or less consistent with the similar questions asked elsewhere. For example, a Fox News poll in early November found that 58% of Americans agree that those "who describe U.S. military action in Iraq as a mistake" are "hurting U.S. troops." Only 16% believed they were "helping." The rest had mixed opinions (9%), believed the criticism had no effect (9%) or could not answer the question (8%).

It is also worth noting that Americans tend to dismiss much of the debate in Washington as attempts to gain "partisan advantage," so the results of the RT question are not particularly surprising. For example, back in September (9/8-11), Gallup asked about politics in the context of Hurricane Katrina:

"Do you think Democrats who criticize the way the Bush Administration has handled the hurricane response mainly want to find out what went wrong, or mainly want to use the issue for political advantage?"
36 find out, 60% use for advantage, 4% unsure

Seven years ago, ABC News and the Washington Post asked a similar question about the impeachment of President Clinton with nearly identical overall results:

"Do you think the House voted to impeach Clinton on the basis of the facts of the case, or on the basis of partisan politics?"
36% facts of the case, 61% Partisan politics, 3% no opinion

Questions that push respondents to consider questions for which they do not have pre-existing opinions do have a role in opinion research (one that should not be labeled as a fraudulent "push poll" — but that’s another subject for another day). However, in those instances pollsters need to take care to provide respondents with new information in a way that does not bias subsequent questions. For that reason, I am a bit surprised that RT Strategies asked two questions that mirrored the Bush administration talking points just before asking respondents their preference about prospective Iraq policy. Would the responses to the third question have been different if they followed a question about say, whether Bush "intentionally misled the American people about the presence of weapons?" We will never know, but it certainly seems possible that they would.

To be fair, Gallup asked a very similar question a few weeks ago (11/11-13) with similar results:

"Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by November 2006 — that is, in 12 months’ time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq."
19% withdraw now, 33% withdraw within 12 months, 38% take as long as needed, 7% send more troops, 3% unsure.

Note that Gallup showed 19% ready to withdraw immediately; RT Strategies show 16%. Gallup shows 52% supporting withdrawal either immediately or within 12 months, RT shows 46% support withdrawal either immediately or on a fixed timetable.

Having said this, I want to caution readers against taking these these prospective policy questions at face value. I also tend to agree with those who argue that the questions on the RT poll are, in essense, the wrong questions, that other measures give a better sense of true, pre-existing opinions on the Iraq War. This is not necessarily a criticism of Riehle and Tarrance, merely a caution that focusing on these three questions alone can give a misleading impression. For example, review the questions asked since Labor Day as posted by the Polling Report and you will find some highly consistent results:

Approval of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq varied between 32% and 36%, with disapproval between 62% and 65%, as measured by six different pollsters.

Differently worded questions about the worthiness of the war (asked by Gallup, CBS, ABC/Washington Post and NBC/Wall Street Journal) found between 31% and 40% that found the war worth the cost and between 52% and 60% that said it was not.

Differently worded questions about whether the decision to go to war was right or wrong (asked by Gallup, CBS and the Pew Research Center), found 42% to 45% who say the US made the right decision in going to war, between 50% and 54% who say we made the wrong decision or should have stayed out.

However, look at the range of questions about prospective policy and the results are all over map. Here is a sampling (full details at the Polling Report):

CNN/USA Today/Gallup (11/30): "If you had to choose, which do you think is the better approach for deciding when the U.S. should withdraw its troops from Iraq: to withdraw U.S. troops only when certain goals are met, or to withdraw U.S. troops by a specific date and stick to that time-table, regardless of conditions in Iraq at that time?"
59% when goals are met, 35% by a specific date, 6% unsure

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics (11/ 29-30): "Do you think there should be a publicly announced timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq?" 47% should, 41% should not, 12% unsure

Harris (11/8-13): "Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?"
35% wait for stable government, 63% bring home next year, 3% unsure

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics (11/8-9): "What do you want U.S. troops in Iraq to do? Do you want them to leave Iraq and come home now or do you want them to stay in Iraq and finish the job?"
36% leave now, 55% finish the job, 9% unsure

NBC News/Wall Street Journal (11/4-7): "Do you think that the United States should maintain its current troop level in Iraq to help secure peace and stability, or should the United States reduce its number of troops now that Iraq has adopted a constitution?"
36% maintain level, 57% reduce number, 4% both depends, 4% unsure

ABC News/Washington Post (10/30-11/2): "Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; or do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"
52% keep forces in, 44% withdraw forces, 4% unsure

CBS News (10/30-11-1): "Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?" 43% stay as long as it takes, 50% leave ASAP, 7% unsure

Pew Research Center (10/6-10): "Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?" 47% keep troops, 48% bring home ASAP, 5% unsure

So there we have it: A consistent majority of at least 60% of Americans now disapproves of President Bush’s performance on the Iraq war and believes it not worth the cost. A smaller majority now says that the war was a mistake. The consistency of the results suggests these are real attitudes, not opinions formed on the spot in the response to the language of the question.

97 Channels…And Nothing On

01. December 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Ain't That America?, General, Media Matters Not, Rant, sarcasm, That's Entertainment!

How pathetic is this… with all the riches of the wealthiest nation on earth (supposedly) at our command, and our culture alleged to bestride the known world like a colossus… but there is still not much on the TV broadcast channels to amuse me on a regular basis. The weekly TV guide is beginning to depress me, almost as much as actually having to buckle down and watch the resulting many-times-digested-and-regurgitated pap, piddle and trivia. I am only grateful I don’t work as a TV reviewer, and would have to watch it all, as a condition of employment. But at least, I would be paid for having done so, which would take the edge off, somewhat. Having a lobotomy might also do the trick… might this be passed off as a business expense for TV reviewers?

My local TV listings in this year of our lord 2005 leaves me wondering of this operation has been performed on those who have a responsibility for the programs gracing (if that is the word that can be used) the broadcast channel schedule. It is almost immediately apparent that all originality, creativity, and genius has fled to the cable channels, the ones that are bundled into a package that I can’t … or won’t pay to get, not if they come at a premium. I just can’t justify to myself paying more than 45$ a month for fifty channels, not when I am interested in only watching two or three of them. I think I’ll just save the money, and buy an interesting series on DVD down the road a ways.

But I do have the basic minimum broadcast channels, and oh, what a depressing prospect that is: wall to wall doctors, lawyers and cops… lots and lots of cops. Whatever interesting concept there once existed about any of those has been wrung dry of originality by copy-catting years ago. Old doctors, young doctors… young lawyers, prosecutors (who the hell cast that woman on “Close to Home” as a prosecuting attorney— she looks like a particularly earnest Brownie Scout, not a law school graduate), defense lawyers, private investigators, military lawyers and psychic investigators, crime scene investigators, military investigators…I don’t wanna even think about the CSI episode which aired last week, about the guy who ate himself to death. Who the hell programmed that for Thanksgiving evening? I damn near barfed! Grossing out the audience is not a good long term strategy, although maybe a collection of CSI autopsy scenes might work as a diet aid.

I will give a tiny cheer to “Cold Case”, though… for the really quite expertly crafted excursions into the past. See, you can do different eras quite convincingly on a weekly TV series, how come we are all stuck in the present, which we know all too depressingly well!? And next season, according to Drudge, the flav of the upcoming broadcast TV year is post-apocalyptic America, after some unfortunate series of events. Gee, one wonders if that cheery and disastrous prospect—picturing Middle America all gone to chaos and anarchy—isn’t giving certain coastal elites a woody of sufficient strength and duration to support a couple of concrete blocks and an small anvil. (Note to the bicoastal cultural elites— Middle America is the place where they have guns and tend to know their neighbors. Word to the wise, ‘kay?)

Shit, doesn’t anyone else in TV land have an original, interesting, non-medical, non-legal, non-law-enforcement job? I can’t even bring myself to watch the reality shows: an assortment of people coping with a bizarre collection of real-world and artificial challenges, showing off for an audience and either allying with or backbiting each other— I thought that is what the blogosphere is for. As it is, about the only show where I can’t see plot developments coming a mile away is “Lost”. I just hope that the creators and writers for that show have a seriously planned and mapped story arc in mind, and that all these odd little incidents do have an eventual point, and aren’t just thrown in every week on a whim; weird for the sake of weird, as “Twin Peaks” eventually turned out to be. Like, why the heck does Jack have a seriously military appearing tat, and where is the tree-trampling, air-crew snatching monster these days? I eagerly await any explanation of these matters; secure in the confidence that it won’t be anything I would have worked out already… which is why I keep tuning in, every week.

To see something different, surprising, amusing, unexpected… entertaining, even. That’s what I watch TV for; to be entertained, and not to be bored, insulted or nauseated. And that I am bored, insulted and nauseated on such a regular basis… well, I can only think that perhaps the broadcast channels don’t really want me to watch. And I am happy to oblige. I have enough good stuff on tape or DVD to go for the next couple of seasons. Think on that, major media sources, when you are trying to sell advertising time.

I’m Exasted For Outrage – I Can Only Laugh.

24. November 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Iraq, Media Matters Not

I am currently watching C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. And they are interviewing a couple of wogs from The Daily Telegraph (Alec Russell, Washington Bureau Chief), and Al-Jazeera (Hafez Al-Mirazi, Host – From Washington). The subject is (of course) Iraq. And some viewer called with the question, “have either of you guys ever heard of Salman Pak?”

And these guys are like totally miffed – huffing and scoffing, and acting as though this were a term from outer space.

LMFAO!

Life Imitates Art

21. November 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Media Matters Not, That's Entertainment!, The Funny

On his Dilbert.Blog, Scott Adams explains navigating a publisher’s bureaucracy, in order to portray a cop shooting an unarmed perp:

The problem is that there’s an unwritten rule in newspaper comics that you can’t show a gun being fired. I knew that, but my editor was new on the job and I thought it was the perfect time to try and slip one through. But his alert assistant thwarted my plan and brought it to the attention of an informal committee of executives to decide how to handle it. The group ruled that the gun could not be shown. The concept of a peace officer gunning down an unarmed suspect was okay, but I couldn’t show the actual gun firing.

[…]

Luckily I have 16 years of corporate experience, and I know how to navigate my way around group decisions. What you need is a solution that could only appeal to a committee. I suggested a compromise. I would keep everything the same, except the gun would be replaced with a donut… that fires bullets. My compromise was accepted. Without explanation to the readers, this is the actual comic that ran that

I wonder how long this “unwritten rule” has been in existence? It has been a very long time since I’ve read Dick Tracy, or Barney Google and Snuffy Smith. But I’m pretty sure I’ve seen guns fired on both. And then, of course, there’s Willie and Joe: lot’s of guns being fired there – if only in the background.

Hat Tip: Todd Zywicki at Volokh

The Murtha Myth

20. November 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Media Matters Not, Military, Politics

I was going to write my own post on this this morning. But, as David Adesnik at OxBlog has already done it, I’ll just link:

Two things to notice. First, Matthews’ introduction of Murtha perpetuates the myth that a renowned hawk has suddenly turned against the war. A renowned hawk is what Murtha is, but as many, many bloggers pointed out immediately after Murtha made headlines, he’s been saying exactly the same thing about Iraq for more than a year now. This is a manufactured story.

Second of all, it is remarkably disingenuous for Murtha to talk about how his recent visit to Iraq changed his mind about the war. If you listen to the full interview, he also lists a number of other recent data points as contributing factors. In other words, Murtha himself is now peddling the myth of his sudden conversion from hawk to dove. Karl Rove would be proud.

Murtha was on Meet the Press this morning. And Russert was more balanced in his interview than Matthews. But Murtha was perpetuating the ancillary myth that there was “no progress” being made in Iraq. But, as Austin Bay blogs here, that’s hardly the reality:

After my return from Iraq I received phone calls and emails from military friends as they either came back to the US on leave or finished their tours and re-deployed “Stateside.” The typical phone call went like this: “I’m back. It’s great to be home. What’s up? How are you doing?” Then, the conversation quickly moved on to: “What’s with the press and Iraq?” The press usually meant television. On tv Iraq looked like it was going to Hell in a handbasket of flame and brutality; however, the images of carnage didn’t square with the troops’ experience.

Today on StrategyPage, my good friend Jim Dunnigan takes on the subject of “troop/press dissonance” from his typically idiosyncratic angle. I’m going to quote from “There’s more going on in Iraq than a media event” at length. (As the essay notes, there is also more going on in Iraq than a war.) Visit StrategyPage and read the second story, “Journalism versus Reality.”

Murtha further stated that he couldn’t get the straight dope from commanders on the ground in Iraq “because they were afraid of retribution.” Then he repeated the Shinseki Myth. But surely that wouldn’t be the case when those same commanders are talking “off the record” to their friend and confidant, Bay.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds, for both links.

On The Eve Of The Pajamas Media Roll-Out…

15. November 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Media Matters Not, Site News

…It seems that some liberals don’t understand us, and can’t see how we can succeed:

Pajamas, as I understand it, wanted to be an ad network. I don’t see huge advertiser demand for a bunch of mostly conservative political bloggers. At one time, they wanted to be some sort of syndicate but I said nobody would buy content. It seems they now want to be some sort of blog central thing — antimatter to the Huffingtonpost’s matter, I suppose — but the difference is that most of her people don’t blog while most of these people already do blog so I don’t know why I need to see a collection of them. And they keep saying they’re going to change their name but they have their gala introduction still using the silly name they have. The invite to the gala intro I just got says:

Meanwhile, we’ve just got $3.5 million in initial capitalization. It seems that some smart businesspeople understand that, despite their celebrity, there are plenty of readers out there who value the observations, opinions, and general musings, of folks like us, and the rest of the network, than those of the likes of Alec Baldwin and Ron Reagan.

“Fire Sale: How The Gun Industry Bought Itself Immunity From The Rule Of Law”

09. November 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: General, Media Matters Not, Politics

Such is the title of this Slate article by Prof. David Kairys, of Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, who has been instrumental in several anti-gun cases. Well, you know it’s going to be barking moonbat crap, from sentence #1, where he holds out the universal evil “Halliburton” talisman. But Eugene Volokh, after reading the article, asks just where does Kairys present ANY evidence of the gun industry “buying” influence in Washington? And, citing the title, and the last two sentences: “Doubtless [other industries] will make some steep campaign donations to get [immunity from lawsuits]. And why not, since the rule of law appears to be suddenly up for sale?” wonders how Slate can present this as a news article, and not an opinion piece?

Time-Pressed Reporters Taking Shortcuts: It’ll Do If It Fits The CW!

08. November 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Media Matters Not, Politics

This from Mickey Kaus at Slate:

Time‘s Joe Klein reports on a White House attempt to “destroy” Brent Scowcroft, quoting “a prominent Republican,” who tells Klein that the White House sent out talking points “about how to attack Brent Scowcroft” after Jeffrey Goldberg’s recent New Yorker profile.

“I was so disgusted that I deleted the damn e-mail before I read it,” the Republican said. “But that’s all this White House has now: the politics of personal destruction.” [Emph. added]

Hmm. Weekly Standard notes that if Klein’s source hadn’t deleted the e-mail he would have noticed that it was a completely civil and substantive attempt to rebut the substance of Scowcroft’s arguments. Real Clear Politics reprints the sober, almost academic email, which ends with a vicious, inflammatory, “Let the debate proceed.”

Bloomberg Unfair To Cartoon Characters

08. November 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Media Matters Not, The Funny

Polls Show NYC Mayor Crushing Underdog
–headline, Associated Press, Nov. 7

Hat Tip: OpinionJournal BotWT

Memo: Military Fact Checking

08. November 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: General, GWOT, Iraq, Media Matters Not, Military

To: Major Media Orgs
From: Sgt Mom
Re: The Wonderful World of the Military

1. It looks like a number of otherwise reputable and professionally skeptical reporters and media outlets have been shown up… yet AGAIN as a bunch of gullible rubes, by a military veteran telling horrible stories of American-committed wartime atrocities. Well, at least, it was a real veteran this time, somewhat of an improvement as far as these things go. And this person was actually in the country, and in the neighborhood of the incidents which formed the initial inspiration of the atrocities to which he claimed to bear witness. But there were scads of other people there at the same time, none of whom seem to back up his soul-searing accounts of atrocities against Iraqi nationals.

2. This is an improvement, of a dubious sort, as far as telling improbable tales is concerned. In the immortal words of Pooh Bah, being at least verifiably in the right country, and at the right time can constitute “…corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.”

3. However, it seems you have not properly assimilated the point of my previous memo, on the subject of military fantasists. Your loss more than mine, I daresay. (And you have obviously not taken to heart the saying about “that, which is too good to be true, probably isn’t.”)

4. To reiterate my main point from my earlier memo: The life military is lived, perforce, cheek by jowl with others. Very little happens in the military world that is not witnessed by others, supported by others, planned by others, reported upon afterwards by others. Practically every significant event to which a military unit is party, amounts to a public forum. Given a specific unit, a specific location, and a specific date, there should rightfully be clouds of other witnesses, to such astonishing and horrific events. That no one else in SSgt. Massey’s unit, or reporters and photographers present at the time, will back his accounts of events speaks volumes. That it took a year for a news story concluding that such substantiation is conspicuously lacking speaks a whole library of them.

5. It would seem that there are indeed two classes of news story in this sad and wicked world. One sort of story is gone over exhaustively, researched extensively, picked apart down to the sub-atomic level, and every participant grilled slowly over an open fire and basted with a skeptical sauce. The other sort is a delicate and precious pearl, gently handled and buffed with flannel, lest it’s luster be dimmed. Frankly, I’d leave the second sort to the celebrity pages, and have the first sort applied equally across the board. At least then, journalism would stand a chance in recovering a portion of the respect in which it was formerly held.

6. Finally I would also be wary of any informant who claims to be a veteran… but says that his DD214 is either classified, or that the military authorities faked it to cover up what he was really doing. Really people— in the news business, skepticism is a virtue when applied across the board.

Sincerely
Sgt Mom

Krauthammer Does Stand-Up

04. November 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Media Matters Not, Politics

Please don’t take that as a play-on-words, as I believe that, considering his condition, Charles Krauthammer can’t stand up. But he sure can deliver. His bit of sarcasm on today’s FNC Special Report with Brit Hume (on again in about eight hours – check your local listings), about the Angry Left’s pathetic attempts to show that Bush is trying to divert attention from “Libbygate”, is a total ROTF deal.

Others Have Died For My Freedom, Now This Is My Mark.

02. November 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Media Matters Not

In an extended post, Michelle Malkin rakes the NYTimes over the coals for their selective editing of Cpl. Jeffery Starr’s “read after death” letter to his girlfriend. The best excerpt is this email she recieved from reader Mark D:

All of this “we can’t print the whole letter” business is a farce. What the NY Times aplogists are missing is this: Those 11 words written by the deceased Cpl Starr are his thesis for the letter. And to exclude it is creative journalism at best, but most likely journalistic malpractice. This would be akin for modern day liberal historians to exclude Lou Gehrig’s famous “Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth” line from his famous speech, simply to make him appear as a weak and sympathetic figure. If space were an issue they could have simply reprinted those 11 words. Period.

Personally, I have a big problem with the very idea of whipping the 2000th KIA into a front-page story. I mean, why is the 2000th death of some greater significance than the 1999th?

Plame Game Errant Thought

30. October 2005 · Comments Off · Categories: Ain't That America?, General, Home Front, Media Matters Not, My Head Hurts, That's Entertainment!

After what seems like months of this impenetrable, three-ring media/political circus, I have finally had a thought about the Plame Affair… no, not the one which everyone else has had… “Say What?????!!!” coupled with a plea for aspirin. This thought is original to me, and I have not seen it suggested anywhere else, and that is…

What if practically everyone inside the Washington Beltway was already vaguely aware that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA? What if this was such common knowledge that practically everyone involved really cannot remember how they came to know it, or who first told them… especially if it came about through casual social gossip?

Well, really, it would account for a number of supposedly clever, politically adroit politicians and reporters suddenly stuck in the spotlight, fumbling for an answer to the question “Who told you, and when did you know?”

Practically anything sounds better than “Everyone knew, I don’t know and I forget when!”

The Daily Brief