. . . has the best side-by-side comparison of the "captured American" with the Cody action figure doll that was used to create it.

Quinton has the best roundup.

Apparently, the whole affair is already on Snopes, but the UK's Guardian is still cluelessly running the story about our guy held hostage by the jihadis.

The weird thing is that the MSM went with this. Don't they have people who can look at a picture and gauge its general authenticity? This is reminiscent of the RatherGate memo affair, in that there are a lot of details that are wrong, but beyond that the whole look is wrong: if nothing else, the head and the body are out of proportion to each other, and the face looks distorted, not quite human. (Just as there were dozens of problems with the RatherGate memos, but they were simply bogus as first glance: typed documents from the 1970s look different than MS Word documents from the 1990s/2000s, and these papers were clearly computer-generated. I would have found that whole affair forgiveable if the memos had been created using Courier, or some other typewriter-simulation font. But they were not.)

The only available conclusion: the MSM is, as a group, less intelligent than my old hiking boots.

My only question: did those who created this image make a tiny little banner to go behind Cody, or was that photoshopped in later?

Fortunately, in this case if the Islamofascists take his head off, it can be popped right back into place. I love happy endings.

UPDATE: Scrappleface tells the heroic story of how the doll hostage was rescued.

Posted by: Attila at 10:22 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Apparently, he has a connection to the TVA that might taint any reporting he ever does on them.

Of course, he bought an ad from me, so this link is pure corruption. (Or would be, if his entry weren't funny.)

* * *

Seriously, the issue is sticky. I've worked for a lot of magazines, and there is almost always some kind of relationship between advertising and editorial. Rarely have I seen the kind of "wall" built between the two that I think we'd all like to think is there. Some things, however, are over the line:

• A publisher declaring that a line of products cannot be mentioned in a magazine, because the company behind them failed to buy any ad pages (really, I've heard of this happening);

• A publisher mandating that reviews of advertisers' products must be positive;

• A radio commentator taking money from the executive branch of the government in order to push their agenda;

• A cable channel taking money from the executive branch of the government to promote drug abstinence;

• A blogger failing to disclose his financing;

• An entire media establishment so intense in its hatred of the President that all journalistic standards are thrown out the window in their attempts to smear him, and any mention of Rathergate is now met with "well, what about those WMD documents?" (For one thing, those documents were only one of many reasons the international community was convinced Saddam had WMDs, instead of being central to the case. For another, it took real experts to suss out their being forgeries, instead of something that's obvious to anyone who did any typing in the 70s, and/or had anything to do with the desktop publishing revolution of the 80s.) Here, the "payola" is psychic, and has to do with earning the approval of one's social circle. But it's real nonetheless.

Posted by: Attila at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, it's here. Editor and Publisher reports:

Four CBS executives were fired Monday following the release of an independent investigation that said a "myopic zeal" led to a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's military service that relied on allegedly forged documents.

The network fired Mary Mapes, producer of the report; Josh Howard, executive producer of "60 Minutes Wednesday" and his top deputy Mary Murphy; and senior vice president Betsy West.

<. . .>

Dan Rather, who narrated the report, announced in November that he was stepping down as anchor of the "CBS Evening News," but insisted the timing had nothing to do with the investigation.

The independent investigators -- former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer of The Associated Press -- said they could find no evidence to conclude the report was fueled by a political agenda.

The network's drive to be the first to break a story about Bush's National Guard service was a key reason it produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet CBS News' internal standards, the investigators said.

What do you want to bet some bloggers will see things differently?

According to RatherBiased, there is a “war” going on within CBS over how much of the report to release publicly—and how soon. How much is released (and when) will tell us just how serious the folks at CBS are about changing the corporate culture.

UPDATE: The report is now available as a PDF. Outside the Beltway has the link, extensive quotes, analysis, and a mini-roundup of blogger reactions.

The main controversy in the 'sphere seems to be whether this report is a "whitewash" of the situation (Hugh Hewitt), or "damning" (James Joyner). It is apparent to me that some of the language was softened a little bit before the report was released (the point is made, for instance, that there's no "absolute certainty" that the memos in question were forged; sure—if someone has a secret time travel machine, the documents might have been produced in the present day by an individual who hopped right back to the 70s, clutching the memos in his/her hot little hands).

But the litanies of egregious lapses of journalistic integrity in the report speak for themselves, and of all the recent media scandals (The New York Times, etc.) this one has by far the highest "body count."

Dan Rather may still have his job, and he may well be sitting in the anchor's chair for a few more months. But he's been publicly humiliated, as has CBS in its entirety.

Diplomatic language aside, the report is ultimately brutal in its assessment, and it brought CBS to its knees. All that remains to be seen is whether this is a one-time gesture or a permanent change in the way 60 Minutes does business.

Posted by: Attila at 09:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.

. . . Though, in all fairness, I must admit I hope it doesn't happen quite this way. Not in every particular, at least. (The film is supposedly eight minutes long, but it felt like 4-5. They say if you give it two minutes, you'll stay for the whole eight.)

Via the Commissar, who's declared himself a "light blogger" for the indefinite future. The Ghost of Allah, I believe, is whispering in bloggers' ears: "if it doesn't pay enough to be a job, are you enjoying it enough to make it a hobby?" Don't listen: he'll drive you mad.

Posted by: Attila at 02:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . is really cracking up. Tim Blair has the evidence.

H/T: Pejman.

Posted by: Attila at 04:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . has the real story on this "armor scandal." Viva Power Line.

UPDATE: Link fixed, I think.

UPDATE 2: Power Line is apparently Time's "Blog of the Year," which means two things to me:

1) there is some justice in the world, and
2) Time may keep this tradition going. Next year, of course, the "Blog of the Year" should be me, based on something brilliant I'll be writing in, oh, July of '05.

Posted by: Attila at 02:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . is a Republican like I'm the reincarnation of Queen Victoria. Which . . . no.

Posted by: Attila at 02:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

About five weeks ago My Pet Jawa broke a story about al-Zarquawi's main site getting hacked. It was only down for a while, but Rusty got a screen capture that went into the post: the page was black, with an American Flag across the top and a crossed-out picture of Bin Laden.

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 attempts to shut them down, but at this point various Federal agencies are ordering companies to leave the sites up. So I'm not signing the petitions quite yet (or pressuring the hosting companies), in the hopes that our spooks and special ops guys are mere inches away from bagging Zarquawi.

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.

. . . is the Supreme Ruler of the Internet, the Blogging World's Studmuffin Deity.

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.

I didn't think I could be shocked by anything CBS does any more, but I was wrong.

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.

Last week Attila the Hub and I saw Rated R: Republicans in Hollywood. One of the film's premises may be that with Mel Gibson's success and Arnold's having catapulted himself to a political office, there is a renaissance afoot of conservatism in the television/film industry.

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.

Next weekend. I'd encourage you to check it out if you're based in Southern California. The Liberty Film Festival will be at the Pacific Design Center (the "Blue Whale") in West Hollywood, and runs Friday, Saturday and Sunday, October 1-3. I'll be attending with Attila the Hub, and will definitely blog the event. If I can get a WiFi connection established, I'll do some live-blogging, natch.

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.

1 Thanks for bring this up, it sounds like a good time. Tough call to go however...Film Festival vs. Going to Catalina and Dressing Up as Pirate.

Posted by: The Pirate at September 27, 2004 07:40 AM (0ZKi5)

2 Re-schedule Catalina! Meet me out at the Film Festival!

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 27, 2004 12:36 PM (SuJa4)

3 That's the thing can't reschedule either. Are you going for the whole event? Pretty sure I'd be on my own, after a 'inadvertant oversigt' in my part got the g/f to go to the 'Right Stuff' comedy tour she does back ground research on any event which attendance is suggested on my part. I would lean towards the festival, because tis a first time even and the election year. Plus Buccaneer Days happens every year. So after rambling on for a while, I'll let you know.

Posted by: ThePirate at September 27, 2004 12:59 PM (0ZKi5)

4 I'll be there mostly with the husband, and I'm going to try to snag an interview or two while I'm there. And try a little live-blogging, if feasible. But I/we would like to meet you, if you're available.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 27, 2004 03:53 PM (SuJa4)

5 I'll figure out what parts I'm going to since the part with Larry Elder is sold out. Any recomendations?

Posted by: The Pirate at September 28, 2004 07:51 AM (0ZKi5)

6 I'll definitly find you if I get there, will you be the one wielding the sword dressed in animal hides chasing the Europeans around the country side?

Posted by: The Pirate at September 28, 2004 09:33 AM (0ZKi5)

7 Friday Night is the World Premiere of Lionel Chetwynd's Celsius 41.11. Saturday Morning (Event 3) Includes the Protest Warriors. Event 8 on Saturday night (right after Larry Elder) is a tribute to Ronald Reagan. Let's see . . . don't have my notes in front of me for Sunday, but that has to include Michael Moore Hates America, which would be a highlight. Definitely wielding a sword and slaughtering innocents 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.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 28, 2004 11:29 AM (SuJa4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . in which he compares the treatment of Arizona (WRT Bush) with that of California (WRT Kerry) in the L.A. Times coverage is fast becoming a classic; Taranto linked to it, and it was mentioned by Brit Hume on the air.

Don't miss it.

Posted by: Attila at 11:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Very kind of you, though the word "classic" might be overstating it. . . Thanks for all your support lately. I appreciate it.

Posted by: Patterico at September 26, 2004 09:22 PM (xZfgb)

2 Now that was nice. He realizes it wasn't Brit Hume that was responsible for the increased traffic . . . but rather little old Little Miss Attila

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 26, 2004 11:13 PM (SuJa4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . whether to write about the (possible) outing of GOP congressman David Dreier. It's tempting to imagine that the more we say about it, the worse it will be for him. But James wrote about it, and Al Rantel discussed it over the radio last night here in L.A. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and all that. Al Rantel is, of course, fit to be tied. For the record, he repeatedly maintained that it was not clear whether or not this was a real "outing."

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.

Iowahawk is going on the blogroll:

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.

What's the big deal? And why do they supposedly comes in twos?

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.

Gives us this exclusive photo. Some lefties in PJs are actively trying to discredit it, but the image proves Lt. Bush's commitment to TANG.

Via Bill in DC.

Posted by: Attila at 04:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Make sure to stop by Patterico every day. He's all over the various forms of media bias.

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.

Addresses the sinking Good Ship Rather:

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.

British news syndicate Reuters is at war with a major Canadian newspaper chain over its refusal to go along with the Reuters policy of referring to terrorists by euphemisms such as "militant." Reuters has asked that its credit be removed when the word "terrorist" is inserted into its stories.

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.