On the New York Times, Jay Rosen, and Clay Shirky.

Rosen and Shirkey are professors of journalism at New York University. O'Keefe made what appears to be an undercover video of a classroom setting. Rosen and Shirky are openly discussing the New York Times strategy to legitimize President Obama during the 2008 campaign, their strategy to help Occupy Wall Street, tax loopholes for NPR, their unwillingness to cover Michelle Bachmann, and a strategy to generate revenue for the Times that involves disparaging conservatives.

The most striking thing about this is the lack of any ethical consideration whatsoever. And the hubris.

Lot of Good Stuff In Here... [ace]: Clay Shirky discusses the issue of bias in coverage, and how it's done.

Regarding Obama in 2006 and 2007, he notes -- at this point in time, at least -- there really was no very credible reason to cover Obama seriously. He was a little-known very inexperienced freshman Senator. And black. The odds of him becoming President were less than 100:1.

And yet the Times realized (correctly) that he could be a viable candidate. But that itself is not supposed to be news; that is, the Times can't "create the news" with a headline like:

Thirty Out of Thirty-Two New York Times Editors Agree: Obama Would Be A Good Democratic Candidate

Now that's actually what they want to say. That is, in fact, the news: that a major influence-leading liberal news organization is impressed by a liberal politician (and so of course will be giving him favorable coverage in the future).

But they can't say that, because supposedly they're not liberal (wink) and because they are supposed to report the news made by others, not report the "news" of their own beliefs and opinions.

So what do they do? They begin covering stuff like Obama Girl, noting the cultural phenomenon of Barack Obama (which wasn't really a phenomenon when they began treating it as such). Without expressly running a story with the headline, Reliably Left-Liberal News Organization Has Decided To Give Barack Obama Favorable Coverage Because They Like Him, that was in fact what was going on, as evidenced by their choice to elevate a little-known freshman Senator into Someone You The Reader Should Be Taking Seriously Because All These Smart People (Not Us!) Are Taking Him Seriously.

It's an interesting observation by Shirky, and undoubtedly true.

Later in the video he discusses the opposite of that -- the Times' decision to not bless Michele Bachmann with Serious Candidate Coverage.

I can't say I disagree with their opinion on that, but then, I'm an opinion writer. I can say "She's not serious." The NYT is supposed to not show that sort of editorial bias in its straight news stories.

At 7:27 begins the most damning stuff. Among the statements (admissions contrary to evidence) Shirky makes are:

1. Most people can't tell their hometown newspaper is super liberal because 95% of the country has only one hometown newspaper and ergo have no basis for comparison. (He seems about 50 years behind the Times on this -- most people have FoxNews now.)

2. The media's business model relies upon the deception that they are unbiased. So while they freely admit their liberal biases among "other elites," they will not admit this to the public. Because (per admission 1), I think he means that the sales pitch of the media -- we give it to you straight and unbiased -- is in fact still fairly effective, due to the prevalence of one-newspaper towns, and thus media liberals would be diminishing their influence and their business reach by confessing this.

He goes on to crow how everyone in the room are all "elites," to which NYU professor of "journalism" Jay Rosen jokes, "We are the one percent!"

But that's a joke like many things are jokes -- a difficult, tendentious admission is confessed to in a jokey format, to lessen the impact.

Good video. Shirky adds a little something to my understanding of bias with his explanation of how the NYT communicated what shied away from communicating expressly (i.e., "We at the NYT are gay for Obama!!!").

Although Shirky is himself a liberal, and a big NYT booster, he's adept at explaining how media bias is actually practiced.

And, as they say in the law, this is admissible in court as Statements Against Interest.

more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 11:06 AM | Comments (146)
Post contains 775 words, total size 5 kb.

Controlling 1/2 of 1/3 of gov't = Republican control.

UDATED! Now with 100% more MEME. (After the break.)

Doesn't this admission of impotence sort of validate the presumption that the only way for the Left to wield power with any effectiveness is if they are permitted absolute power, unfettered by the specter of being held responsible for failed programs in the next election?

“Democrats aren’t in charge. The House is obviously run by Republicans, and in the Senate, we have 53 Democrats but the system now is set up so that you need 60 votes to do anything,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said in a C-SPAN “Newsmakers” interview that aired Sunday.

Be nice if someone had a job whose responsibilities included asking follow-up questions. I don't know, that person could be called a 'journalist', and they could ask things like "So when you had control of the Executive & the Legislative, why didn't you go ahead and pass a jobs bill that worked or, hell, even something as fundamental and constitutionally mandated like a budget, instead of spending your political capital on an unpopular health care bill?"

But then, doing so would allow the average reader to grok the hypocrisy in the following statement:

Over 240 days and this Republican Congress has not put forth one jobs plan,” Belcher told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper last month. Democratic operatives defend Belcher’s choice of words, even though Democrats control the Senate.

Of course we see the standard media tactic of providing editorial color to Republican statements. Republicans are "crowing" the success of their dastardly authority.

Democrats' statements are given with no adjectives.

And of course, the final word reinforces the meme. (Although I think they miss the unintentional irony in the statement, which I've emphasized.)

“The facts are that it’s a Republican Congress,” he said.

“There is no disputing the fact that congressional Republicans have repeatedly blocked the bipartisan, paid-for ideas offered up by the president in the American Jobs Act — even though it’s the only plan before Congress that independent analysts confirm would create jobs right away,” said Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:05 AM | Comments (163)
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

You may recall when a clean-cut Tea Party patriot brought a lawful AR-15 to an Arizona rally a couple of summers ago. The 5th columnists at MSNBC went all monkey-poop over it. The numbnutted Beltway ninnies had puppies.

In short, it was a Very Important Moment for the leftocracy, as they could demonstrate how dangerous the bitter, racist clingers of the broad center really are.

Fast-forward to this week. Same state. Another rally. This time, a whole crew of AR-15-toting, tactical-camouflage-gear-wearing, political-discourse-spewing rednecks show up. They're intimidating. Like they own the place. And they're there for the protection of the protestors against the police and other authority figures.
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:27 AM | Comments (287)
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

You may have noticed we've spent a bit of time on the many, many, many faults off each GOP candidate for the nomination. But there has to be some good things about them too, right? They are attracting some support.

Let me get things going. The list won't be comprehensive or even terribly convincing given my personal lack of enthusiasm for any candidate but we are going to nominate one of these people, so we might as well polish up the turd as best we can.

I could qualify each positive or offer 3 or 4 counterpoints but that's not the purpose of the exercise.

Mitt Romney: I honestly do like his mix of experience. Strong business experience, turning around the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and a term as Governor. He certainly has plenty of executive experience, which I think is important in a candidate for the presidency.

When he speaks about the economy and the governments role in it, he does a nice job. He was good on the auto bailouts, he's offered politically unpopular but realistic talk about the housing market and defending the idea that corporations are people sounds odd to many people it's necessary to push back on liberal lies.

Herman Cain: Again, solid business experience which is a plus.

Obviously his strongest asset is his personality and passion. His ability to stir up the base is unmatched in the race. He's got that great deep voice and the cadence of the southern minister that he is. When he gets rolling, you want to believe, you want to get out there and fight to get the country back on track.

Rick Perry: Long tenure as Governor of the 2nd largest state. He's dealt with all the issues, faced all the crises and has an enviable record of creating the environment to grow jobs. His tort reform has made his state attractive to medical professions and corporations of all sorts.

His instincts are clearly in tune with conservatives.

His economic plan is bold and basically in line with every conservative idea floated over the last 30 years.

Newt Gingrich: I like smart conservatives who can see problems and offer conservative solutions to meet them. As important is the ability to articulate the rationale behind them and promote conservatism as a governing philosophy. Newt's been the best at that for over 20 years and this campaign has shown he hasn't lost a single step. He's simply the smartest, most articulate candidate out there by a wide, wide margin.

I also really like his desire to find some way to deal with an out of control judiciary. As important as any particular plan to do that will be convincing the American people that a lot of what they think about the role of the judiciary is just plain wrong. Again, that's right in Newt's wheelhouse.

If you want to take on the intellectual underpinnings of liberalism in this country and make the conservative counterargument, Newt is head and shoulders above anyone out there.

Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, Huntsman? You're on your own with them.

I know this is a little out of the ordinary but let's try and keep one thread positive because the best thing about each of these candidates is none of them is a SCOAMF like Barack Obama is.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:54 AM | Comments (466)
Post contains 571 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm conflicted between being annoyed that further tax money is being diverted towards a noisy cog in the liberal machine and being grateful that it's so meager a gesture.

Krauthammer:

"It's entirely incoherent," Charles Krauthammer said of Obama's plan to pay down student loans. "I'm not sure if those savings are real, where are they? What he spoke about today was tweaking the student loan program, which he now controls. In a way, it's rather astonishing. The numbers were run by an economics correspondent today in The Atlantic magazine. And It turns out what he is offering the students is between $4.50 and $7.70 a month of relief."

Posted by: Ace at 07:50 AM | Comments (275)
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

It sounds like it.

Arguing the election cycle has too many presidential debates, Rick Perry's top spokesman said the Texas governor could use more time with voters instead of taking the stage with Republican opponents.

"We're about 60 days away from votes being cast," communications director Ray Sullivan said on CNN's "John King, USA" Wednesday. "The candidates need to spend time in Iowa doing those town halls and spending a lot more time with the voters, who oftentimes have the best questions and press the candidates the hardest."

...

"But look, we're taking each of these as they come, examining the schedule and examining the opportunities and the opportunity costs," Sullivan told King, CNN's chief national correspondent.

...

"We certainly respect the process, but when you've got eight of nine candidates and 30 seconds to a minute, it takes valuable time away from campaigning in Iowa, as those elections approach," Sullivan said.

Perry started to lay the ground work for this Tuesday night on Bill O'Reilly's show saying participating in debates may have been his biggest mistake to date.

Are these debates ideal? Of course not. Should the GOP hand over its nomination process to people who for the most part are liberal democratic operatives posing as journalists? No, it shouldn't. I've written more than once that these debates are awful. So don't think I'm defending them when I say this....if Perry starts skipping debates he's essentially quitting the race.

Skipping debates is something you can do when you're the front runner and don't have anything to gain by participating. When you're barely a second tier candidate like Perry? You simply can't give up any chance to make your case to voters.

Perry also has a very specific reason he can't skip any debate. His fall from front runner status is almost entirely due to his awful debate performances. He simply can't say he's not good at these things and skip them. Being President means you're going to face things you're not good at, dealing with them isn't optional.

Part of the "job interview" aspect of the campaign is getting voters comfortable with you. No one can know what issues a President will face or how they will react to everything that will come up in a term. Candidates have to establish a confidence in voters that when push comes to shove, their experience and judgement will be up to the challenge. Running away from a challenge won't instill that feeling about Perry in the minds of voters.

Perry will also open himself up to criticism that if he can't deal with Mitt Romney or Hermann Cain, why would anyone think he can deal with Barack Obama? Perry would likely argue that he'd be better in a one on one setting than these mass events but who would believe him?

If Perry is going to do this he needs to agree to participate in some one on one debates with other candidates. I doubt Romney would agree to it so I think Perry should try setting up some events with Newt Gingrich. If Perry wants to show he's not afraid of debating and he's ready for prime time, go pick a fight with the guy generally believed to be the heavyweight champion of the discipline. If Perry can best Newt or even hold his own, he'll do himself a lot of good.

Perry can't wish this away. He lost his lead because of his performances in these debates, avoiding them isn't going to get it back.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:30 AM | Comments (387)
Post contains 602 words, total size 4 kb.

Richard Epstein: Is income inequality really a bad thing? Boiled down to gravy: incentives matter. (The interviewer's obvious liberal outrage at Epstein is hilarious, by the way. This clip is worth watching for that alone.)

No link yet, but the WSJ reports that the economy expanded by 2.5% in the third quarter and that jobless claims fell by 2,000 in the last week. Not the kind of numbers to throw a party over, but at least the line is moving in the right direction. (Though the cynic in me is waiting for the inevitable revision downwards.) EDIT: Here's a link from CNBC.

Rep. Paul Ryan: How class warfare weakens the United States. (I'm sure you'll all be as shocked as I was to discover that the liberal tools at The Nation do not approve of Rep. Ryan's message.)

Has a Eurozone deal been brokered at last? I sincerely doubt it. If the 50% haircut number is accurate, and is non-voluntary, it will count as a hard default and trigger CDS contracts in many cases. If "voluntary", they may not get enough buy-in for the deal to work. And even if they do jawbone bondholders into taking the haircut "voluntarily", itÂ’ll only mean a few weeks of respite for the beleaguered Greeks anyhow. Their debt will still inexorably grow and grow. The whole charade is meant for French and German banks, not the Greeks. Sooner or later, the Greek citizenry will simply go into open revolt.

Dear Greece: Look, I get that there are some hard feelings against the Germans from the war. I get that. But man, you donÂ’t go askinÂ’ a man for money and then insult him to his face, you know what IÂ’m sayinÂ’? Cause that dude might just take a mind to tell you to go f**k yourself.

The problems with Obama's "targeted" mortgage subsidy. Just remember: anything Obama does from now until the election is not intended to produce actual results, but simply to give the appearance of positive action.

You think our political debates get heated? How about some fisticuffs on the Italian parliament floor! I have a feeling that the comity in our own House will be strained when the so-called "Super Committee" fails to reach a budget compromise.

Speaking of the "Super Committee": it is currently deadlocked...over taxes, of course. Everyone whoÂ’s actually surprised at this turn of events, raise your hand. (Maybe KerryÂ’s gaseous filibustering has just worn the poor folks out?)

Do our financial smarts erode quickly after age 60? I think it's more a case of making some really bad assumptions when you move into your elder years: too many people think they can shift completely away from saving and into drawing down their savings. They take the concept of "retirement" too literally, and interpret it as a total vacation from fiscal reality. The rise of the welfare state in America in the post-Depression years has had a lot to do with this. As long as you draw air (and even for a while afterwards), you are subject to the iron law of supply and demand -- there is no "retirement" or vacation from reality.

How do you go from 250 billion to 1 trillion without adding any extra money to the pot? Leverage, baby! It’s the salve that heals all wounds! What’s the worst that can happen? (Also: when you hear the words “special purpose vehicle” as an investment pitch, run, do not walk, to the exit because you are about to get fleeced, greased, and decreased.)

Apparently, “economic justice” smells like bad B.O., pot-smoke, hair-grease, Four Loko, dandruff, and that haunting ineffable scent of human turds.

Reducing the power of the guild. Much legal work does not require a degree in law, much in the same way that much healthcare work does not require an M.D.

I am a pro-critter person, and one of the saddest aspects of any downturn is the plight of companion animals. Too many people take on pets without realizing that there are significant expenses involved (both in time and money), and then simply abandon the pets when money gets tight. Companion animals are just that -- companions. TheyÂ’re not toys to be thrown away when they become inconvenient. (I could even make the same observation about children in many cases.)

OhioÂ’s application to the Loyal Order of the Terminally Boned (LOTB) is hereby approved. LetÂ’s give our newest inductee a big hand!

The absurdity of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:49 AM | Comments (218)
Post contains 762 words, total size 6 kb.

THORSDAY! more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:59 AM | Comments (178)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Is Education The Common Thread To Our Political Dramas?

Well not all of them but it does seem to be a root cause for a lot of current political issues.

To start with our public schools are not doing a very good job. That's bad enough but fixable over time.

But worse we're paying way too much for the poor educations that our kids get.

And the only thing worse than an expensive, under-performing public school system is an uber-expensive university system that encourages students to take on debts approaching a house mortgage yet leaves them ill-prepared to actually earn a living, much less pay back their loans.

Which is pretty much what we have.

Here Bookworm points out that if you distill the causes behind Occupy Wall Street into two words, they would be student loans:

Because it seems as if every one of the loopy Occupy Wall Street dudes and dudettes interviewed complains about those students loans. (See here, for example.) Two out of thirteen of the demands on the Occupy Wall Street website focus on student loans

...ItÂ’s pretty clear that a core issue animating these protesters is the ridiculous debt obligations that they voluntarily assumed. ItÂ’s therefore almost funny to see the working class union types leaping on board to help out kids whose demands, if acceded to, will pile ever greater debt on the ordinary working stiffs in America.

And now Obama is considering an executive order that would lower student loan payments to no more than 10% of a graduate's income. Will this help? Nope - the average borrower would only save about $5 per month:

Using these values as the high and low bounds of average student debt over the last ten years, the monthly savings for the average student loan borrower would be between $4.50 and $7.75 per month. Clearly, this isnÂ’t going to save the economy. While borrowers with bigger balances would save more, this is the average. And even someone with $100,000 in loans would only cut their monthly payments by $28.50.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:55 PM | Comments (593)
Post contains 1085 words, total size 9 kb.

Is that all there is?

Romney leads in New Hampshire and Florida and is statistically tied for first with Herman Cain in Iowa and South Carolina. Iowa will hold its caucuses on January 3. New Hampshire is expected to hold its primary on January 10. The South Carolina primary will be on January 21. And the Florida primary will be held on January 31.

In national polling, Fox has Cain ahead of Romney, 24-20. With Gingrich at 12, and Perry at 10.

Posted by: Ace at 02:15 PM | Comments (1063)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.