You guys remember that story about a GE shareholders meeting last month in which shareholders (including a Fox News producer) tried to find out if GE or subsidiary NBC-Uni told CNBC to back off criticism of the President.

According to that story, the CEO dodged the questions and then shut down the microphone.

Well, it sounds like first GE and then NBC decided to punish the trade paper that ran the story.

According to my sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media, The Hollywood Reporter trade publication ran a story dated April 22nd and updated on April 24th covering the "drama" at the most recent GE shareholders meeting in Orlando. THR's West Coast Business Editor Paul Bond wasn't sent to the meeting, but he interviewed about half a dozen people who'd been inside the shareholders meeting and told him what transpired (see below). Bond's THR story focused on the attempts by stockholders and Fox News Channel and other media to find out whether or not GE Chairman/CEO Jeffrey Immelt ordered his news operations to be less critical of President Obama and his policies.

Bond's story was immediately picked up by The Drudge Report under the headline "GE shareholders outraged over MSNBC bias; Microphone cut off." It became a widely posted news story on conservative and liberal and media websites everywhere. That's when, sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media tell me, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt ordered a GE company-wide ban on all of THR's parent company: advertising, editorial, the works. After a few days, the ban was reduced to GE's NBC Universal against Nielsen Business Media's The Hollywood Reporter and lasted six weeks. (My NBC Universal sources believe the ban was lifted yesterday.)

It's how the game is played. If GE doesn't want media coverage of something, it can bring quite a bit of pressure not to run it. Rump-AOL wishes it could muster as much influence to shut down the Playboy story.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:30 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

No wonder Obama's got such an outsized ego. Women want to be with Obama, and men... well, the men in the media want to be with Obama too.

I am not overstating things when I say that Obama could ask for blow-jay from pretty much any man in the media and get, at the very least, a shy apology and a raincheck.

So, Evan Thomas thinks he's "sort of god."

Well, of course you do, darling.

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
......

Thomas elaborated on Obama as God, patronizingly explaining: "He's going to bring all different sides together...Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together...He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that." In response, Matthews wondered: "If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign." Thomas agreed: "Yes, he is."

Uh huh.

Allah agrees that "flip flops for the public good" are the opening shot in the media/government roll-out of Obama's tax hikes.

Question: How many people in the MSM do you imagine have actually been consulted on this, told that taxes will have to be raised (but off the record, of course), and asked for their help in preparing the public for it?

My guess: About 15-20% of the Washington Press Corps. And they're all, to a man, willing to help in some way.

They all know damn well that Obama has created conditions such that we face massive tax hikes on everyone or runaway inflation. (Or, of course: Both.) They know this, they have even been told this by the White House, but they are keeping silent about it.

Until the White House decides it's time to launch its new "product." The public appetite must be stoked, first.

I've written Jake Tapper asking him to please ask Gibbsy or Bammy about this before the official product roll-out.

And while Evan Thomas is ready to kneel to Obama (as god or as man -- it's all good, either way), our resident annoyingly earnest troll Palin Steele has informed us that Obama is Captain America, savin' the country.

Seriously, you have to read this beclownacious drivel. And the mighty trashing that follows. Pretty much all the world's greatest superheroes weigh in on her claim.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff for pointing out more of this quote. It's worse than I imagined.

Posted by: Ace at 04:43 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama recently told the fine folks at DoJ to appeal a decision ordering the government to release a bunch of detainee abuse photos.

Senators Lieberman and Graham (the McCain Twins) not wanting to take the chance on a Supreme Court argument, introduced a bill which gives the President the authority to withhold the photos. That bill passed the Senate.

The Weekly Standard is now reporting that Nancy "They Misled Me" Pelosi is caving in to pressure from members of her caucus and pulling the photo language from the bill in conference.

If the photos are released, the left gets to preen, terrorists get a recruiting tool and soldiers, sailors, Marines and Airmen may die.

Good to know what the Democrats priorities are.

Sure, sure they'll say, "No, we are protecting America! We need to know what happened and come clean so it never happens again!"

Yeah, here's the thing, that's bullshit. We know what happened. People have gone to jail for it. We had photos all over the NY Times and every other media outlet ad nauseum for months. We get it.

These photos aren't about "accountability" or "getting to the truth of what happened". They are about the left's ongoing efforts to de-legitimize Bush and what's been accomplished by our troops in Iraq.

The fact that Democrats in the House of Representatives are willing to do this at the price of dead Americans (even Obama recognizes this) speaks volumes about them.

Posted by: DrewM at 03:06 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

I noticed this yesterday but didn't think it was worth mentioning. But now that Jon Stewart is in on the act, I guess it's a trend.

Slate's Troy Patterson is that most useless of media types, a television reviewer. The only reason I know his name is because I had some fun with this card-carrying sissy when he hyperventilated over the extreme right-wing messaging of 24.

And when I say card-carrying sissy, I'm not talking about his sexuality. As far as I know. But he is, obviously, a sissy, gay or straight.

Oh, who am I kidding.

Anyway, he watched that Brian Williams tour of the White House Obama's lower duodenum and found it almost as laughable as a conservative might.

This week, NBC News, feeling left out of the fun [of how ridiculous the NBC Entertainment division was proving itself], got in on the act of degrading the airwaves. Congrats to Steve Capus and his team for reminding viewers just how awful television news can be.

...the specialÂ’s dumbest moment was the tracking shot showing Obama walking the portico as if he were taking a date into the Copa 'round the back way.

Maybe. There are so many bits of ridiculousness here that it’s tough to pick a favorite. The pulsing dance music scoring a shot of Rahm Emmanuel opening a door? The adrenalized zooming on envelopes labeled "top secret"? The segment pretending to offer an “anatomy of a talking point” that could have been approved by David Axelrod himself?

The presidentÂ’s opposition couldnÂ’t have been giddier at seeing "the media" so blatantly submerged in "the tank."

He throws "media" in quotes... I don't know why. I guess he's suggesting that NBC isn't real media, or at least it's not acting as real media here. But this is what the media routinely does. They're just usually not this transparent about it.

Anyway, that's what I can add to Allah's post about Jon Stewart similarly laughing at Brian Williams' two-hour sex tape.

I still don't find Stewart funny -- I mean, jeeze, his big funny line is the sort of thing I write every third post -- but it is interesting that liberals are even beginning to nauseate themselves.

Also tucked in there: I questioned the usefulness of Rasmussen's newfangled "Presidential Approval Index," but there's no questioning the pedigree of this metric: Obama's "Excellent/Good" rating stands at 51%. His fair/poor (that is, his disapproval; "fair" means bad) is at 49%.

51-49? Seriously? Given the other numbers peg his support in the mid-to-high fifties, I'm guessing this is on the low side.

But who knows.

Posted by: Ace at 02:15 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh, are they? You know, the problem isn't really that he's flip-flopping per se. It's that he lied for corrupt political advantage for two years without the media challenging him on his claims and "positions."

And now that he reverses himself on these positions -- having never really intended to follow-through on them in the first place; just to attack his opponents by staking out fantasy-positions no credible candidate would embrace -- the ObaMedia is now obligated to sell the changes to his liberal base.

His liberal base keeps him afloat, after all. So they will have to be sold a bill of goods. Almost as bad as a bill of goods as the media has been selling the rest off us for 50 years.

So don't worry, liberals and Obama voters! Trust the MSM: All of Obama's broken promises are for your own good.

You were just too dumb and too partisan (or just too dumb, period) for him to give it to you straight before. Now that you let him boink you six ways 'till Sunday, he can 'fess up that he has some light herpes.

But you know you wanted it. If he'd told you the truth, you wouldn't have gotten into bed with him so readily, and that would have been your loss. Because seriously, he's really a god in bed.

In the end, Americans will understand and accept a president who changes course, as long as he does it for the public good or to acknowledge new realities, not for crass partisan reasons or to curry favor with particular interest groups. But there is hell to pay if a president breaks a fundamental promise and can't justify it. Perhaps the best example is George H. W. Bush, who violated his "read my lips--no new taxes" pledge from the 1988 campaign. Partly as a result, Bush lost his re-election bid in 1992.

So far, Obama's shifts have not risen to the level of a fundamental change in his views or a redefinition of his presidency. If Obama can continue to demonstrate his commitment to everyday Americans, and get results, voters probably won't hold either his flexibility or his flip-flops against him.

"New realities." These are of course old realities. But when you reverse your position and break your promises, as you always expected you would, it's helpful to claim that "circumstances have changed."

And so you see here the roll-out of the media campaign of Obama's biggest broken promise yet (which I'm sure powdered-bottoms like this dickbag will deem to not be "fundamental") --

Obama's sudden discovery that "circumstances have changed" and that he will, despite two full years of solemn vows, sadly, reluctantly, have to raise taxes on all but the poorest Americans after all.

And it will all be for the "public good," you understand.

His promise still stands. Minus a zero: No one making under $25,000 per year will pay a single dime in new taxes. Sure, it's a zero different from the old promise, but think about it: A zero is nothing at all, so really, this is not a change at all.

Sometimes you really want it but you don't know you want it, and you need someone to just do it. Ask Guy Cimbalo.

Thanks to TerryN.

PS: Anyone heard the WH promise to not raise taxes since they got elected?

I submit that this promise was made a lot before November 4, 2008 and not a single time since.

Posted by: Ace at 01:39 PM | Comments (10)
Post contains 610 words, total size 4 kb.

Yeah, baby.

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

Unbelievable. Obama, to his credit, squelched the analogy:

OBAMA: Well, look, there's no equivalency here.

Powerline and Allah seem to view this as Brokaw's ugly equivalency.

But is it? Is Brokaw completely to blame? Is he not merely following up on this equivalency offered by Obama in his Cairo speech?

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. ...

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

Note I have omitted some words after the Buchenwald mention, to call attention to the Buchenwald/On the other hand connection. (The link has the full quote.) But truncated or not, Obama's quote makes precisely this connection.

Why is Brokaw to be faulted for following-up on Obama's clear equivalency?

Or, rather: Why is Obama being let off the hook and praised for rejecting an equivalency he suggested not 48 hours ago?

Sure, fault Brokaw for not rejecting the equivalency himself -- and asking the question as a challenge to Obama, demanding he explain his suggestion -- but don't let Obama off the hook.

And remember, this candidate specifically rejects the criticism that his words are "just words." His words, every precious syllable of them, are meaningful and, indeed, healing and transformative.

Posted by: Ace at 01:10 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

Time to funsubscribe from AOL too, if you're still one of the thirty people using it.

First, as was suspected, AOL's politics blogger Tommy Christopher was fired from his job for covering the Playboy hate-"Love" list.

He even lied to cover up for his employer:

There was no profanity in my original Playboy story for Politics Daily, although this was the reason given for its deletion. I embellished the reasoning when republishing it to shield my employer from criticism.

By which I think he means he pretended this reason was truthful, even though he knew it was a lie.

And still he was fired.

He was fired by his boss Melinda Henneberger. Now, it just so happens that this woman used to blog at DoubleXX. So she still has friends there, one would presume. And this DoubleXX blog just happened to swoop in to Playboy's defense, attacking, by implication, critics of the hate-"love" piece like Tommy Christopher.

Apparently, free speech is so over when the masses rule the media: “It’s only OK if I think it’s funny. It’s only OK if it fits my politics. It’s only OK if I say it is.” I wish Playboy hadn’t pulled it. Censoring the piece doesn’t make it any less real, any less politically incorrect, any less true. Attempting to police human nature is the real joke here.

Meinda Hennenberger also defended the media's non-coverage of the John Edwards babydaddy scandal as well.

She seems to find the thought of running any stories that embarrass the left anathema.

Or was she merely doing the bidding of her corporate masters?

Has the fact that AOLÂ’s parent company, Time Warner, has a business relationship with Playboy may have affected their editorial decisions? After all Time Warner is a major national distributor of Playboy TV through their cable company.

Either way, AOL now is a great defender of rape fantasies, and a severe opponent of anyone daring to criticize rape fantasies.

In more news about this: "non-partisan" liberal feminist Bonnie Erbe kinda-sorta chastised Playboy for running the screed. However, she then decided that Michelle Malkin was, as the saying goes, a dirty slut just asking for it.

Yes, I'm sure women the world over are glad to have the "non-partisan" Ms. Erbe defending women from vicious rape fantasies. So long as the women in question are, like her, suitably "non-partisan."

Below the fold, the Megyn Kelly response I'm sure you've already seen. It's not Megyn at her best: Because, I'm sure, she feels the need to restrain herself, being, against her will, a target of the rape-fantasist Guy Cimbalo.

So she doesn't really tee off. Although the anger is palpable.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 4 kb.

First, a trailer for a new Star Wars game. As tipster CDR M says, this looks better than the Clone Wars animated feature. In fact, it looks better than the live-action prequels, too.

And via tmi3rd, a funny video from Cracked. A dream house, if you're into Star Trek. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:05 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 2 kb.

From the LAT, no less.

Interest rates soar on jobs data, putting housing at risk

The Treasury bond market is in cardiac arrest today over the May employment report: Yields are soaring, dealing another blow to investors whoÂ’ve been hiding out in government bonds -- and threatening another big jump in mortgage rates.

If rising home loan rates price more buyers out of the market, sellers will have to respond by cutting asking prices. Anyone have a better idea?

The 10-year T-note yield has surged to 3.84% from 3.71% on Thursday. The 2-year T-note has rocketed to 1.25% from 0.96%. Yields now are the highest since mid-November.

...

And that raises the question of how soon the Federal Reserve will be forced to begin pulling back from its unprecedented easy-money policy.

Now, I guess maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get this penultimate sentence:

The May employment data offer real hope for an economic rebound. But can we have a lasting recovery if the housing market isnÂ’t part of it?

What? The numbers were horrific and even worse than the somewhat-less-horrific expectations. Where is the LAT finding a silver lining here?

Anywhere they can find it, or pretend to find it, as this must-read piece argues. Counterpunch is actually a lefty site. But even they notice.

Last week we got a whole series of bad reports on the state of the economy. New and existing home sales both remain near their lowest level for the downturn, as house prices continue to drop at the rate of 2.0 percent a month. New orders for capital goods, a key measure of investment demand, fell by 2.0 percent in April. Excluding the volatile transportation sector, new orders were still down by 1.5 percent.

On Friday, the Chicago Purchasing Managers Index fell by more than 5 percentage points from its April level, approaching its low for the downturn. The employment component of the index did hit a new low.

These reports might have led to gloomy news stories, but not in the U.S. media. The folks who could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble are still determined to find the silver lining in even the worst economic news.

For example, National Public Radio told listeners that the new home sales figure reported for April was up from the March level . While this was true, the April figure was only 1,000 higher than a March level that had just been revised down by 5,000. April new home sales were 4,000 below the sales level that had originally been reported for March. USA Today touted a “surge” in durable goods orders, which was also based on a sharp downward revision to the prior month’s data.

The media have obviously abandoned economic reporting and instead have adopted the role of cheerleader, touting whatever good news it can find and inventing good news when none can be found. This leaves the responsibility of reporting on the economy to others.

Any serious examination of the data shows that recovery is nowhere in sight. The basic story of the downturn is painfully simple. We have seen a collapse of a housing bubble which has devastated the construction sector and also caused consumption to plunge.

...

The plunge in house prices has send consumption plummeting. The problem is not consumer attitudes, as many commentators seem to believe. Rather, the reason that most homeowners arenÂ’t buying a lot right now is the same reason that homeless people donÂ’t buy a lot of things: they donÂ’t have the money.

...

If there is evidence of a recovery in this story it is very hard to find. The more obvious story is one of a downward spiral as more layoffs and further cuts in hours continue to reduce workersÂ’ purchasing power. Furthermore, the weakness in the labor market is putting downward pressure on wages, reducing workersÂ’ purchasing power through a second channel.

The media understands, I think, that it has bet the ranch on Obama. Their fates are now intertwined. Obama is, far more than GM, too big to fail.

And they will continue with the bailouts and emergency political capital infusions for as long as their credit -- their credibility -- allows.

But that won't be for very long. They are burning through credibility at an alarming rate, and will themselves be bankrupt at about the same time the country is.

Thanks to Circa.

The "Real Hope:" Buzzion explains:

Its because the amount lost was less than what was lost in April or something. They're spinning things so much soon we'll be able to use the media for power generation.

Right. Like a wounded man who loses a pint of blood in a hour, then another pint, then another pint... and then only half a pint. Must be getting better, right?

Or: He's almost out of blood entirely and his heart is barely pumping it anymore.

More Explaining: Terry Notus writes:

There are two numbers:
1) Job losses
2) Unemployment

Unemployment came in worse than expected because more people are looking for work.Job losses, actually came in better than expected.

The difference is that more people are looking for work, which makes unemployment look worse, even when job losses are not as bad as they could be. Hence the confusion.

So previously they were "discouraged workers"? Why did the media not inform us that such "discouraged workers" existed anymore?

Ah, okay. As Geoff noted:

While I was waiting for May’s numbers to be released I did a quick Google News search on “unemployment.” Here is the first set of entries that popped up:

Pittsburgh unemployment rate falls to 6.9 percent
-- Bizjournals.com - Unemployment in the Pittsburgh area inched down in April to 6.9 percentÂ…

US Economy: Jobless Claims Fall, Productivity Rises
--- Bloomberg

US jobless claims fall again, productivity rises
-- Reuters

Jobless claims are down, but work remains scarce
-- AP

You get the feeling that thereÂ’s a little pre-spin effort afoot? I mean, why put up an article on AprilÂ’s unemployment on the day that MayÂ’s numbers come out? And while jobless claims did fall, interpreting that information without the unemployment rate is very difficult.

I do see now where one could claim that the numbers are "encouraging"... but only if one focuses laser-like on one metric and ignores the other.

I would have thought it hard to spin a 9.4% unemployment rate. I was wrong.

"Jeneane Garofalo" Weighs In:

I simply think this is the economy and Wall Street hating on a black man as president.

Obviously.

Morpheus... explains more, and makes a good point.

I think they are looking at the nonfarm payrolls number from the establishment survey. That was down 345K, but expectations were for a loss of 520K. Also, net revisions to prior months was +82K. These figures were on balance a positive, given the dire economic scenario priced in by bond markets.

The unemployment rate came in at 9.4% versus 9.2% expected, hit by a double whammy of a 350K increase in the labor force and 437K loss in employment. The household survey is usually considered less reliable as a guide to the labor markets, though, as compared with the establishment survey.

The key is... the press tended to focus on whatever the worst number was out of the two surveys (establishment vs. household) until somewhere around January 2009. Now, not so much. What changed?

I suppose these numbers are "positive," but only when compared to expectations of an even worse bloodletting. I guess it is fair to look for a silver lining and say the "rate of losses is going down." Sort of.

Eh, I don't think it's a genuine bottoming. I guess time will tell.

And Morpheus is 100% right in pointing out that, under Bush, the media always focused on the downbeat indicators. Under Obama, it only focuses on the positive.

What accounts for that, I wonder.

Posted by: Ace at 11:29 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 1335 words, total size 9 kb.

I have trouble believing this. Guys have been claiming this -- as a joke, or a wish-lie* -- for a long time. And somehow it's true?

Spermine, a powerful anti-oxidant originally discovered in, yes, human sperm, is said to diminish wrinkles and smooth the skin. The substance is now being synthesized in laboratories and sold by a Norwegian company called (seriously) Bioforskning.

And this spa offers it.

Spermine Nutritive Cream and serume for deep cleansing Facial

Effects:
• Repairs the skin barrier and rebuilds the fat and moisture balance in the skin.
• Healing properties.
• Protects against UV induced redness.
• Stimulates collagen production by 600% and cell renewal by all of 40% after only 8 days.

In related news, my computer screen has been stimulated to produce enough collagen to choke an orca.

Thanks to Lenora.

* Oh, "wish-lie" comes from an unexpectedly funny movie I'd never heard of but saw on HBO -- The Promotion. I'll review it later. But if you see it on HBO, record it. And hell, it's good enough to pay to rent.

Posted by: Ace at 11:06 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.