September 30, 2004
Posted by: Attila at
02:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.
A month later a related site was hacked, and this went unfixed for multiple days. Meantime, In the Bullpen was on the case, and he posted the event—with a screen capture of the graphic, a penguin holding a full-auto rifle and the legend, "if you host them, your [sic] next."
Now, the MSM (with MSNBC in the lead) are using screen captures from both postings without giving either gentleman credit for breaking the stories or saving the images for posterity. The attitude appears to be "I found it on the internet fair and square, and I neither need to authenticate it nor give the blogger credit." It's sloppy and amoral, but other than that it's a great approach.
And then there is the current online controversey about whether Americans should be hosting these types of sites in the first place. There have been
A girl can hope.
And when we do capture him, I hope it's the Marines who have custody of him first. Because I think they would treat him in a very respectful way at any point wherein there were cameras nearby. That's all I really ask.
Posted by: Attila at
01:25 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.
As most of you know, a few days ago See-BS "covered" the urban legend that a draft is likely over the next few years. They based this on interviews with a woman who's an activist in an antidraft group (but claims to be a Republican), and on e-mails that are circulating like virus warnings and proclaiming we're in danger of instituting a draft.
And Bill just bagged interviews with the reporter involved (Richard Schlesinger), its producer (Linda Karas), and a See-BS spokeswoman, Sandra Genelius. It's an absolutely amazing coup, and I wish Bill would put me in touch with his medicine man or patron saint. The CBS staffers are all in one entry, and even given that it isn't too long—but has plenty of juicy links to follow up on. If you read nothing else this week, get going.
INDC: "A lot of people have a problem with this issue though, because it's specifically something that's been used by the Kerry campaign as a recent talking point. Did this influence ..."Schlesinger: "No, it was an issue because it was out there. There are issues that we choose to do stories on ... I specifically said in the story, 'both candidates have said they would not support a reinstatement of the draft.'"
INDC: "Probably the main concern with the story is that the e-mails that are shown in the piece are false; they've been debunked on various internet sites long ago ..."
Schlesinger: "The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and itÂ’s gotten people all riled up. Whether or not thereÂ’s any reality to there being a draft, is almost besides the point. Do I think thereÂ’s going to be a draft? No. But it's an issue that people are talking about."
That's a hell of a rationale for running urban legends as fact. Maybe See-BS should tackle this one next, interviewing someone who "knew" the aggrieved bride/groom. That kind of thing.
Jeff has a nice roundup on the issue, and a damn funny document recently "unearthed" from the CBS files. So I'm almost sorry I called him a whore. Almost.
Posted by: Attila at
12:30 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.
September 29, 2004
At Jeff, via RatherBiased, which is down again just now.
Posted by: Attila at
02:12 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
September 26, 2004
My husband and I are in the two most left-wing LA industries: entertainment and media. (How did this happen? Well, my husband elected to join a sector wherein if you work hard and enjoy a little luck, you can make good money. Not being the brightest bulb in the marquee, I elected to go for an industry wherein if you work had and enjoy a little luck you might—just might—barely be able to eke out a living.)
My husband is "out," though he doesn't talk politics too much with his colleagues and there are awkward moments for those not "in the know." For instance, he hired a youngish writer to contribute to a television series. The bright young man wanted to please him, so he forwarded an e-mail about Kerry having picked John Edwards as his running mate, and the implications of this for the Kerry campaign. Of course, the mail underscored the importance of defeating Bush this November.
The point is not just that a writer committed a faux pas; the point is that it never crossed his mind his boss wasn't anti-Bush.
Reflecting the hard-scrabble nature of the media business, I haven't been "out," except within the community of gun owners and among "outdoor sport" publications, where I've had a handful of articles published over the years. ("Outdoor sport" means hunting and guns.)
Until a week ago Tuesday. My media industry group meets every month, and we usually go around the room and introduce ourselves. This time, instead of just announcing that I was a freelance copy editor, I mentioned the URL for this web site (though I initially garbled it, and had to correct myself—a sure sign of nervousness). Someone—let's call him Rick—asked me about the actual content.
"It's really libertarian; you'll hate it," I assured him. I did not, however, use the word war, as I didn't want to actually start one within our cozy little publishing group.
But things may be changing in media just as they seem to be changing in entertainment: later in the meeting Rick was discussing the kinds of magazines that appeal to the broader country, and made what he obviously meant to be a classic "the asses are masses" point: "people are voting for Bush," he said.
No one laughed, or followed up on his remark. So he said it again, a little louder, and I'm sure everyone heard him, but there was another subthread going on in the discussion, and people continued to be engaged in that rather than in Rick's "joke." At the time I thought it was curious, and assumed people just didn't want to get into politics in a professional setting. Later on, though, I realized just how strange it was, since usually any media/entertainment gathering has leftism in the air like oxygen is in the air, and there is usually no compunction about bringing this up, as we are "all among friends." That night, though, as I was dropping off to sleep I remembered that our group has more people who are shy of their 40th birthdays than middle-agers like me, and I realized I hadn't been the only one in that room who intended to vote for Chimpy McHalliburton.
The times, they are a-changin'. Maybe. I'm not even asking for parity: only that within both industries we attain critical mass to the point that our points of view are respected, and we aren't blackballed as intellectual lightweights. And that we stop losing jobs over our politics.
Posted by: Attila at
03:52 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.
Tickets must be purchased in advance, over the web. They will not be selling tickets on-site. Move on this now!
To be featured:
• Appearances by Larry Elder, Lionel Chetwynd, and Michael Medved;
• Three cinematic takedowns of Michael Moore, including Michael Moore Hates America, Larry Elder's Michael and Me, which discusses the ways Moore has lied about the Second Amendment issue, and one film that focuses on the distortions in Fahrenheit 9/11;
• A panel discussion on how to get started as a conservative filmmaker;
• A film that discusses Ann Coulter, which I'm very interested in seeing, given the degree to which I've vascillated as to whether she really is "our Michael Moore" (I think not, though her sweeping statements and glib putdowns still bother me);
• A thriller about a planned terrorist attack in L.A. Harbor, put together by the film festival's founders;
• a documentary on Mel Gibson and The Passion.
Posted by: Attila at
02:48 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.
But if you want to be sure, go to the Outside the Beltway blog, where James has a separate topic on his sidebar called "Blog Chix Pix." The most recent version of that (should be the first one that comes up) has two links to pictures of me.
Also, e-mail me at littlemissattila@yahoo.com, and we'll get more specific.September 25, 2004
Don't miss it.
Posted by: Attila at
11:36 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
September 23, 2004
That's an important point: I don't think we know for sure at this point whether David Dreier is gay. But then, I don't think a lot of conservatives care about his personal life. That is, after all, the nature of conservatism: what's private is private. The State has no business in your bedroom. The original modern conservative, Barry Goldwater, had a gay son and made it clear that he wasn't interested in legislating morality—or in armed forces weakened by arbitrary rules about whether gays could or could not join.
And I don't think it's hypocrisy for a gay man not to think gay marriage is necessary, for his own happiness or for the good of society. (I happen myself to be in favor of gay marriage, but it's a fine line and I would be happy if there were simply a vehicle for conferring full partnership benefits upon gay couples—including Federal benefits.) It's worth noting that Dreier didn't support the decidedly un-conservative Amendment prohibiting gay marriage. (I tend to think that Amendment was only proposed as political cover: I truly doubt anyone ever expected that turkey to ever succeed.)
But this business of "outing" people has got to be the dirtiest thing I've ever seen in my life. Making the intimate details of people's lives (real or imaginary) a subject of public discourse is disgusting. I am not the least surprised to see Larry Flynt's money behind this, as it was behind the campaign to smear the House Managers during Bill Clinton's Senate trial. (Because God forbid a poor woman like Paula Jones actually have a fair day in court; Clinton's perjury was excusable so the wealthy can retain justice for themselves.)
This "political outing" business is an unbelievable, depraved thing to do. And I hope the people involved feel dirty for the rest of their lives. And I hope Dreier wins re-election by a huge margin, so we can show the left who the real homophobes are.
Hugo is conflicted, but largely negative about outing, thank goodness. Xrlq shows up in his comments section for a lively debate.
BoiFromTroy is unimpressed by the putative "outing": "my advice is, simmer down and get back to me when you have more than innuendo."
Dirty tricks: that's what they've got. It's actually kind of sad.
Posted by: Attila at
12:25 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.
September 22, 2004
It was a slow September night in Manhattan. The kind of sweaty summer night where the mean streets of Gotham run wild with the shadowy scum of the Republican National Convention. The kind of night where mysteries are born. The kind of night I live for.My name is Rather. And IÂ’m a dick.
If you don't go read it, you'll hate yourself. And you'll die wondering what you might have missed.
Via Goldstein, who really enjoys questioning hapless news anchors. Up to his elbows in that process, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Attila at
11:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
September 21, 2004
But . . . seriously. Here's The Big Trunk of Powerline, who has a question or two for the brass at CBS.
Posted by: Attila at
04:56 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
Via Bill in DC.
Posted by: Attila at
04:42 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
Here, he discusses the malpractice at CBS:
These are not people who were duped. And the problem is not how they handled it once they were caught -- though they handled that part badly. Their main transgression was in ignoring the evidence staring them in the face before the story ever ran. At the very least, they could have given some time on the broadcast to the dissenters.But they didn't. And I've said this before, but it bears repeating: don't fool yourself believing that this is the first time this has happened. Come on. If you have watched "60 Minutes" then you are familiar with that feeling you have at the end of a segment, when you think to yourself: "Wow, everything seems to point to one conclusion." You thought that was because everything really did point to one conclusion?
Nope. It's because everything else was left on the cutting room floor.
We're just seeing one very notorious example where they got caught.
Yeah. They've got caught before, but there wasn't enough "buzz" that they were forced to kind-of sort-of admit it.
It's a whole new world out there.
Posted by: Attila at
02:22 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.
By now just about everybody on the planet also thinks [the "Killian" documents are] junk, except for that dwindling number of misguided people who watch the ''CBS Evening News'' under the misapprehension that it's a news broadcast rather than a new unreality show in which a cocooned anchor, his floundering news division and some feeble executives are trapped on their own isle of delusion and can't figure out a way to vote themselves off it.So the only story you're in a position to break right now is: ''Late-Breaking News. Veteran Newsman Announces He's Recovered His Marbles.'' And, if last week's anything to go by, you're in no hurry to do that.
Instead, Dan keeps demanding Bush respond to the ''serious questions'' raised by his fake memos. ''With respect, Mr. President,'' he droned the other day, ''answer the questions.'' The president would love to, but he's doubled up with laughter.
And:
Why has CBS News decided it would rather debauch its brand and treat its audience like morons than simply admit their hoax? For Dan Rather? I doubt it. Hurricane Dan looks like he's been hit by one. He's still standing, just about, but, like a battered double-wide, more and more panels are falling off every day. No one would destroy three-quarters of a century of audience trust and goodwill for one shattered anachronism of an anchorman, would they?As the network put it last week, ''In accordance with longstanding journalistic ethics, CBS News is not prepared to reveal its confidential sources or the method by which '60 Minutes' Wednesday received the documents.'' But, once they admit the documents are fake, they can no longer claim ''journalistic ethics'' as an excuse to protect their source. There's no legal or First Amendment protection afforded to a man who peddles a fraud. You'd think CBS would be mad as hell to find whoever it was who stitched them up and made them look idiots.
So why aren't they? The only reasonable conclusion is that the source -- or trail of sources -- is even more incriminating than the fake documents. Why else would Heyward and Rather allow the CBS news division to commit slow, public suicide?
Whatever other lessons are drawn from this, we ought at least to acknowledge that the privileged position accorded to ''official'' media and the restrictions placed on the citizenry by McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform are wholly unwarranted.
Yes. That is where we are. If nothing else, this election cycle should have taught us that McCain-Feingold has got to go.
And it is indeed starting to look like the Democratic Party is in this up to its belly button—at least.
Via The Pirate.
Posted by: Attila at
01:14 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.
Fair enough, but as one of Smash's commenters points out, how can Reuters report the news if they don't use that word? What is next?—replacing the judgmental word "murder" with something else such as "assisted untimely death"?
Kathy Kinsley recently remarked that the word "militant" now means "terrorist," and we'll simply have to come up with a new word for "militant." We may well be at that point, and it's a shame.
Story is at Smash, via Dean Esmay and Joe Gandelman.
Posted by: Attila at
12:09 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.
September 15, 2004
Rather still wants this whole story to be "Did Bush Bend the Rules To Get Into TANG, And Then Miss His Physical?" When in fact it's "Did Dan Know the Documents Were Fake, Or Not?" I guess we can forgive him for not being able to sniff out the story people actually care about in all this.
I know they've been laying the groundwork for this "forged, but accurate" defense, but it was still startling to see it. I'm going to assume that if Rather got charged with a crime, and there was gossip/innuendo to the effect that he was guilty, it would be okay with him for a cop to plant evidence. After all, the "evidence" so manufactured would be "faked, but accurate." The language is Orwellian, and the logic is circular: "the documents authenticated the rumors; the rumors authenticate the documents. We can all go home early."
But I do have a favorite moment. It was the point when Mrs. Knox asserted to Rather that the young Lt. Bush "didn't seem to think he had to go by the rules that others did."
I'm sure Rather found something to relate to there.
A few little blogger-picky things: Why is Dan Rather asking a TANG secretary questions outside her real area of expertise, pertaining to military procedure and so forth? Memos and files are things she's qualified to discuss, but chain-of-command issues, and the seriousness of not taking a physical, are matters that I would expect pilots and their actual superiors to speak to—not support staff. Why does this matter? Because every pilot from the time who's weighed in on this on the sites I've visited has said that missing a physical wasn't a matter one's commanding officer would normally get involved in. You did it within the month your birthday fell, or you stopped getting paychecks if you were required to maintain your flight status. Or, in Lt. Bush's case, the understanding was, IIRC, that it was more practical for him to let his flying status lapse since he wasn't going to be flying anyway. As I understand it, it was considered wasteful for him to maintain it if he wasn't going to need it.
If Bush really was supposed to have a physical exam, why can't CBS find someone in his chain of command to assert this? Other than a dead guy into whose mouth they are putting words?
And Mrs. Knox admits that medical exams normally took place around one's birthday! She said that in the interview! So why would Killian be leaning on him to get it done earlier in the year, rather than in July?
And then there's the vaguely unpleasant insinuation that a man's secretary is going to have a more accurate memory about his state of mind regarding any given individual than his own wife would. (But then, that's why CBS used Killian's son as the gentle challenge to Mrs. Knox's recollections, rather than his widow.)
If Bush really was resented by his fellow officers for his "attitude" (and that may well be; he's only recently mastered that smirk thing), why can't CBS find one of them?
And there's this weird two step wherein some unknown party saw a file full of Killian's notes (which must have been hand-written, and therefore material Knox didn't necessarily see) pertaining to Bush, and transcribed them. But Mrs. Knox says things were changed so Killian wouldn't get into trouble. Why would a dead man need plausible deniability, anyway? And also: from the news organization's point of view, if you have hand-written notes, you've struck the mother lode. Who in their right mind would transcribe them to make them look more "official"?
If this is the way they want to go, then they need to find those original notes. This may be a problem, since the family maintains they never existed.
And if I were Killian's family, I'd be thinking about slander suits.
Posted by: Attila at
10:24 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 710 words, total size 4 kb.
Rather Alters Stance on Space-Unicorn RoyaltyNEW YORK -- In a stunning reversal yesterday, embattled CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather renounced his claim to the throne of the Space Unicorns, instead declaring himself to be the Bonnukarr, culmination of human evolution, sent back in time from the 857th Century by the warrior-god Kobaltine IV to prepare mankind for the coming Insect Wars.
Via Ilyka.
Posted by: Attila at
07:57 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
September 14, 2004
60 MINUTES TO INVESTIGATE 60 MINUTES II
NEW YORK — In a stunning development, the flagship news program of CBS, 60 Minutes, has decided to investigate its Wednesday night counterpart, ‘60 Minutes II.’60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt came out of retirement in order to investigate the spinoff program, which, he pointed out, was an idea he had always hated and opposed anyway.
“This story has all the classic ingredients of a archetypal 60 Minutes story,” Hewitt said. “Forgeries and lies. A brazen attempt to influence a presidential election. Shadowy political operatives. A powerful institution that is hiding behind short, defiant statements. The whole situation just screamed a need for a hard-hitting reporter to hold the powerful guys in suits accountable. It just happens that in this case, we’re interviewing the powerful guys in suits down the hall.”
The media world is abuzz with excitement about the shocking interview of CBS Evening News host Dan Rather by Mike Wallace. CBS has released one particularly tense exchange:
(Wallace and Rather sit opposite each other, eye to eye, almost mirror images.)
Wallace: ExpertÂ… after expertÂ… after expert has declared these documents (dramatically holding up four sheets of paper) to be forgeries. What is your response to them?
Rather: We have solid sources.
Wallace: Who are they?
Rather: IÂ’m not going to say.
Wallace: Why should people trust you?
Rather: Do you know who I am? IÂ’ve been in the news business for 42 years!
Wallace: Do you know who I am? IÂ’ve been in the news business for 53 years! And Christopher Plummer played me in the movie!
Rather: I am 100 percent certain that the chances of this document being real are almost 51 percent.
Wallace: YouÂ’re being evasive.
Rather: IÂ’m not being evasive, IÂ’m just being more nimble than a one-legged Texas bullfrog before a prairie thunderstorm!
Wallace: That doesnÂ’t even make sense.
Rather: IÂ’m tired of this criticism coming up with regular frequency, Kenneth.
Wallace: What frequency? And whoÂ’s Kenneth?
60 Minutes will present its report, “The Great CBS News Civil War of 2004” on Sunday.
WARNING: The above statement is a parody. So far.
My favorite line? "It just happens that in this case, we’re interviewing the powerful guys in suits down the hall.”
Scroll around the "Kerry corner" while you're in the neighborhood: Geraghty has some interesting insights on what's going on inside CBS right now, and how all these events affect the rest of us.
Posted by: Attila at
04:22 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.
But it's cargo cults that are on my mind. Remember those?—tribal island societies that enjoyed a surplus of exotic/luxury goods when Western pilots landed in their midst (particularly during WWII, though also at other times), and came to associate abundance with planes and pilots. The pilots and other military personnel became connected, in their minds, with godlike ancesters, and when the Westerners stopped using the bases and landing strips the people constructed replica planes out of indigenous materials such as bamboo. They wore faux headsets, made of wood. They lit up the landing strips, now empty. They acted like the Westerners had acted, but without understanding.
And so the Democrats, including the ones at CBS, saw the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth succeed in "smearing" John Kerry's military record, and saw Kerry's lead against Bush melt away. Like islanders constructing wooden headsets, they emulated the form, not understanding the function. They found/manufactured evidence that George W. Bush wasn't such hot stuff in his military career, either. They didn't understand that the potency of the Swifties' claims was not so much in the mechanics of how Kerry got any of his particular medals, but in the startling realization of the common voter that a group of American vets was hurt that badly by John Kerry's actions when he got home—the perception that he got out early on a pretext, and then proceeded to slander them to their families and their countries—that they could never forgive him. Even those whose religious faiths demanded that they at least try.
That's what was important about the Swift Boat ads: America got to see just how much many military men and women—but particularly men from this one war—despised Kerry. And they began to wonder if there might be a reason for that.
And so the decision was made by some Democrat (either inside or outside the DNC, and that little detail does matter) to create scandal about George W. Bush's record during Vietnam. To close the deal that Gore had pitched, and Ann Richards before him: that George W. Bush was AWOL during Vietnam.
In a country that elected Bill Clinton as commander-in-chief twice. Including the time he ran against Bob Dole. It should be obvious that we don't place a huge value on military service— or John McCain would be President of the United States right now.
Clearly, the Dems didn't think it through: they confused the circumstances of a bounce with the true reason for a bounce.
The fact is, Americans don't really vote for their Presidents based on events of 30 years ago. But when the nation is under attack they like having a guy around whom the military establishment feels it can get a thing or two done with. And one whom the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines actually like.
Dan Rather helped his pals in the DNC to build wooden planes without engines. I wonder if he realizes this in the middle of the night when he's trying to figure out how long he can survive.
Posted by: Attila at
04:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 3 kb.
September 13, 2004
Can some of this information be shared via e-mail while more of the facts are being nailed down?
Also, please keep in mind that the person who constructed these documents may well have done it as a joke (that would explain why they are so sloppy—they may not have been intended to deceive).
The focus should be on why Dan Rather accepted these memos at face value without more than a fig-leaf type of fact-checking job. It doesn't matter a whole lot where they actually came from, because they are just that bad: no one Dan Rather's age should have been taken in by them. After all, I'm sure he's seen a typed document or two in his day.
Let's be careful out there.
Posted by: Attila at
08:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.
September 12, 2004
In the 80s and 90s you could make your own video about media bias and typefaces, and hawk it at gun shows to 5-10 people a day. And if mainstream media types even saw this material, it was easy to write you off as a crank.
I'm having that same feeling now that I did when I was ten years old and Walter Cronkite (whom we trusted in those days) came on the CBS Evening News to talk about all the insect parts that had been found by labs in commercially available hot dogs. To this day I'm a Hebrew National Beef Franks kind of girl—partly for the garlic they're laced with, but also for the rabbinical supervision over their production.
When I was ten, the question in my mind was, "how many insects have I eaten in hot dogs over the course of my life?" And now it's "how many flagrant lies have I swallowed because I've assumed that—despite the way the truth is shaded in the MSM—the bare-bones facts had been verified and could be trusted?" Beyond the spin, there were the facts. And they were reliable, or so I thought.
Now I've got less of a feeling that I can really count on any mainstream news organization at all. CBS, the Boston Globe, AP, and NPR have proven completely unreliable with respect to their fact-checking in areas related to the TANG issue (which no one cares about in the first place, BTW—it's not the crime, as they say . . . ).
The Los Angeles Times is trying to report the story, but bury it at the same time. It has, however, stopped short of lying, so we have to place it on the side of the truth-tellers here. Barely. (As Patterico points out, they place the meat of the allegations in the jump, and never use the word "forgery.")
ABC, Fox, the Dallas Morning News, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the Washington Post are interested in preserving their reputations. They are at the top of the cliff, watching the other lemmings fall through the air, and deciding that they aren't interested in that particuar leap.
There are some journalists who realize what's happening, and want to preserve their reputations.
So the glass, going forward, is half-full. If only it weren't for all those metaphorical insect parts I've eaten over the past three or four decades.
Posted by: Attila at
02:41 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.
219 queries taking 0.1286 seconds, 511 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
