CTH Public Relations

• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• China by CO2HOG [August 23, 2011, 12:41:08 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Torture by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 12:40:39 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40600
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 31
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 29
Total: 29

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

This guy sounds literate, fair, and convincing.

He criticizes Fox and MSNBC. But he's still wrong.

There are such things as objectively true facts.
Of course, there are some political beliefs that are neither objectively true nor objectively false.

Advocating for these political beliefs is legitimate in journalism. Fox does it and MSNBC does it. No one objects to this.

But Fox, and sometimes, MSNBC does it,  routinely lies, distorts, and denies objectively true facts.

The problem with Fox news is not that it is biased. The trouble is that it is so frequently wrong about objective matters of fact.

The point is that they all deny their subjectivity.  Not that subjectivity is wrong, but dishonesty is.

   
Jon Stewart Catches Sean Hannity Falsifying Footage
To Make GOP Protest Appear Bigger Than it Was


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-10-2009/sean-hannity-uses-glenn-beck-s-protest-footage

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

MSDNC loses more of its remaining 400 viewers...


MSNBC apologizes for showing fake Palin photos

1:40 pm November 16, 2009, by Jay

Good. Glad to see it. Even with an acknowledgement that the photos were false, they shouldn’t have been broadcast. (from TPM).

    MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan apologized this morning for using fake photos of Sarah Palin last Friday in a segment about the former Alaska governor, and for not acknowledging their inauthenticity.

    The pictures, which were widely circulated during last year’s presidential campaign, show Palin’s head photoshopped onto other women’s bodies. In one, “Palin” is wearing an American flag bikini and holding a rifle; in the other, the faux Palin is wearing a tight black miniskirt.

    “I want to apologize to Gov. Palin and all our viewers. On Friday, in a very misguided attempt to have some fun in advance of Palin’s upcoming book, Going Rogue, our staff mistakenly used some clearly photoshopped images of Ms. Palin without any acknowledgment, and on behalf of the show I would like to say that this was completely unacceptable. We should have never used those photos in the first place,” Ratigan said today. “I apologize.”

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/11/16/msnbc-apologizes-for-showing-fake-palin-photos/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

Incredible.  Imagine if these were emails coming from, say, a Republican....


New Policy at The New York Times!   [Mark Steyn]

The paper's position on those revelations of "climate change" shenanigans I wrote about earlier:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.

(Please note: This policy does not apply to Republican candidates showing any signs of life in the polls.)

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzIzN2IyNmYxOWRkZTVjYmVmM2ZiZDI3MDczMTAzODg=

[Seriously?]

Chris Matthews calls West Point "the enemy camp."

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/sTbJcixsLq8&rel=0</a>

Seriously? Seriously?

Why don't they like him?

Why don't they like him?

Picture of the crowd from the West Point speech, courtesy of Reuters:

Think CNN will get the picture? That people want hard-hitting, unbiased investigative journalism, not an Obama rah-rah?


CNN's ratings slump 25% after Dobbs' departure

Could things get any worse for CNN? Apparently, the answer is 'yes.'

The pioneering and once dominant leader in cable news has been hemorrhaging viewers for some time and earlier this year suffered the indignity of slipping to last place among cable news networks, behind even its sister network Headline News.

Now come the November Nielsen ratings showing that the surprise departure of Lou Dobbs has cost the network even more viewers.

After Dobbs announced his resignation on air on Wednesday November 11, CNN suffered a 25% decline among all viewers in Dobbs' 7pm time slot, and a 26% decline among adults 25-54.

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/12/02/cnn-missing-dobbs/

["This is bad."]

Shocking..I wonder if this is the reason why Fox is doing so well?  Ya think?

New Rasmussen Survey: Voters See Media As Liberal, Biased & Too Powerful

By Rich Noyes (Bio | Archive)

A new survey from Scott Rasmussen finds that more than half of all voters (51%) believe "the average reporter is more liberal than they are," and two-thirds (67%) think the media have "too much power and influence over government decisions."

Rasmussen's poll was released Thursday. Perhaps proving the point, on Friday, MSNBC anchor Savannah Guthrie reacted to polls showing the Democrats losing ground in Massachusetts by exclaiming: "This is bad." According to Rasmussen: "Only 20% of all voters say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of a political campaign. Seventy-two percent (72%) say most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2010/01/15/new-rasmussen-survey-voters-see-media-liberal-biased-too-powerful#ixzz0cnUkEMRL

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

Post Apocalypse
Inside the messy collapse of a great newspaper.

Gabriel Sherman

On July 2 of last year, Politico broke a startling story: The Washington Post was planning to host off-the-record salons at which sponsors would pay to mingle with D.C. eminences and Post writers. The dinners--the first of which had been advertised in Post fliers as an “exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done”--were to take place at the home of Katharine Weymouth, the Post’s publisher.

Weymouth, granddaughter of legendary Post owner Katharine Graham, had only been on the job for a year and a half. Now she was at the center of a potentially major journalistic scandal. Even though she was on vacation in Europe at the time, she was quick to react. “Absolutely, I’m disappointed,” she told Post media reporter Howard Kurtz. “This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren’t vetted.” A few days later, Weymouth penned a letter apologizing to readers. But that wasn’t enough to make the matter go away. The paper’s ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, soon published an investigation concluding that Weymouth and other top Post employees had been intimately involved in planning the salons and knew about their off-the-record status. The episode, Alexander wrote, constituted “an ethical lapse of monumental proportions.”

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/post-apocalypse

Reuters Withdraws 'Backdoor Taxes To Hit Middle Class' Story Linked By Drudge Report

The lead story at DrudgeReport.com as of 11:30 a.m. this morning was "**REUTERS: Backdoor taxes
to hit middle class." But Reuters withdrew the article last night. Drudge noted the change and wrote: "**REUTERS pulls tax story..." then added another link to the top left margin: "Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million employees..."

So what happened?

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

House of Peers   [Mark Steyn]

As Jonah and I have written here previously, "climate change" is not only a scientific scandal but also a massive journalistic failure. While the "Canadian Journalism Project" continues to insist that dissenting from the orthodoxy is "irresponsible journalism", Matt Ridley at The Spectator acknowledges the reality:

Journalists are wont to moan that the slow death of newspapers will mean a disastrous loss of investigative reporting. The web is all very well, they say, but who will pay for the tenacious sniffing newshounds to flush out the real story? ‘Climategate’ proves the opposite to be true. It was amateur bloggers who scented the exaggerations, distortions and corruptions in the climate establishment; whereas newspaper reporters, even after the scandal broke, played poodle to their sources.

Mr Ridley credits various British, Canadian and American bloggers, and then makes this observation:

Notice that all of these sceptic bloggers are self-employed businessmen. Their strengths are networks and feedback: mistakes get quickly corrected; new leads are opened up; expertise is shared; links are made.

The correcting mechanisms of competitive businesses are largely alien to America's unreadable monodailies, which is why they'll be extinct long before the polar bear. As an example of what Matt Ridley's talking about, consider this piece designed to prop up the increasingly discredited IPCC from ABC Australia's Margot O'Neill. It's a simulacrum of reporting rather than the real thing. It has quotes from impressive sounding experts, but, as Mr Ridley put it above, she is playing "poodle to her sources":

Here is how Queensland University's Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a world expert on coral reefs and climate change, describes what happened when he contributed a small slice of the 2007 IPCC report:

"The IPCC has one of the most rigorous review processes I have ever experienced. There are various stages of review. The first round involves the working groups picking over the text (hundreds of eyes and qualified expert opinions). If you have been involved in this process, it is a quite an experience which takes months and years - involving a lot of pedantic haggling over detail - but always using the peer-reviewed literature as the base..."

And on he yaks, in great detail. Like all the poodles of the environmental beat, Margot O'Neill repeats those magic words "peer review" every couple of paragraphs like a talisman to ward off evil deniers. But, in the course of invoking the phrase "peer review", she never bothers to look at whether the IPCC actually does it. By contrast, without benefit of the resources of a national TV news operation plus salary and benefits, lone blogger Donna Laframboise did a couple of text searches on the IPCC report and discovered multiple predictions of doom - on Himalayan glacier melt and much else - resting not on peer-reviewed science but merely on activist groups such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. Miss Laframboise writes:

Nothing prevented Ms. O'Neil from taking a firsthand look at the IPCC report herself. She, like me, could have typed "WWF" (which stands for the activist group, the World Wildlife Fund) into a search box and found the 16 distinct WWF citations in the IPCC's 2007 report. Within a few minutes she could also have found the eight Greenpeace papers listed...

Instead, Ms. O'Neill - who has 25 years experience as a journalist - was utterly bamboozled by the PR machine which is the IPCC. She fell for their slick mirage. And then she passed it along to her viewers and readers.

For good measure, Miss Laframboise points out that Margot O'Neill was either suckered by or consciously misrepresented her expert witness:

In the process she might have noticed that one of her scientific experts - Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (whom she quoted as saying: "I don't think you could have a more rigorous process") - is a co-author of one of those non-peer-reviewed Greenpeace papers.

The poodles are heading for the endangered species list, and deservedly so.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTYyZTBjYjAzOTA1OTM5Y2UyOTQ0Y2I0ZDJkMzBjNDU=

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

Media bias?  What media bias?  You right-wing conspiratorial nut job!

    [W]hy are the media so invested in the warming notion, given the countervailing evidence, the fact that the last climate theory (the global cooling scare of the 1970s) was so quickly disproven, and that it is self-evident that CO2, that most persecuted of molecules, is essential for life[?]

    Well, the BBC, a prime proponents of warming theory, or AGW, has heavily invested its pension fund in the theory, and thus have had a major non-scientific reason for their bias. As revealed this weekend in The Express:

    "The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit. Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as 'mainstream' while huge sums of  employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted. The BBC is the only media organisation in Britain whose pension fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which has more than 50 members across Europe."

    The IIGCC is an interesting group. As their website explains:

    "The IIGCC is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4 trillion."

    Wait. . . . I hate to be a skeptic, but did they just say . . . “Four Trillion Euros”?

    They did.

    The Chairman of IIGCC investment group is Peter Dunscombe, who also happens to be the BBC’s Head of Pensions Investment.

    Cui bono, my friend, cui bono?

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzg4MTAwMDM4M2RlZDE0YWEwNDQzYmQwZTUyYzY2Mzc=

Quotes:
"Government is to incompetent to have pulled off anything like 911, let alone cover it up"

If nothing else, watch the last 1:30
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/zubg0cFU21A&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/zubg0cFU21A&rel=0</a>