Here’s a new one: the Washington Post describes how the newly-minted governor of Virginia survived the paper’s smear campaign against him. Ken Shepherd of Newsbusters says it reminds him of Anchorman, though perhaps with less blow-dried hair:
Today’s Metro section front-pager by Washington Post’s Amy Gardner — “McDonnell team rose to challenge in darkest hour” — reminded me of a line from “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy”
“From deep down in my stomach, with every inch of me, I pure, straight hate you. But g*d***it, do I respect you!” seethes rival TV station anchor Wes Mantooth (Vince Vaughn) to Burgundy (Will Ferrell).
The Washington Post hatefully threw all it had at making the “thesis issue” a career killer for McDonnell, who went on to win 54 percent of the women’s vote in Tuesday election. But looking back, Post staffer Amy Gardner gave readers a look into how the McDonnell campaign hunkered down, stuck with a disciplined message, and thwarted the paper’s scheme to “macaca” McDonnell:
Of course, as Shepherd’s reference to “macaca” highlights, liberal journalists’ attacks on conservative politicians are considered merely par for the course in DC. Bill Clinton was quoted by the Post, coincidentally or not, at the height of their macaca phase, “There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies — and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses.”
But what happens when those accusations flow the other way? Then it’s time for a little “Media Criticism, Chicago-Style.”
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
3 Comments
1. Tina Trent:I agree with all else here, but that Reynold’s piece was wrong, as is the entire outcry over prosecutors demanding the evidence those students have announced they have uncovered.
That’s not about journalistic freedom: it’s about evidence.
Despite the good work they do in the exceedingly rare case where someone has actually been wrongfully convicted (250 acquittals over a period with millions of murders and rapes is exceedingly rare, and not all the acquitted are actually innocent) the Innocence Project does a lot of damage to the justice system by grossly misrepresenting everything from statistical prevalence of wrongful conviction, to the “causes of wrongful prosecution” in individual cases (Number one actual cause? Offender’s prior record. Number two? Associating with the real offender or other criminals), to the previous records of their clients, to their utterly fabricated “statistical analyses.”
And the media dutifully reprints their press releases, advancing the defense bar’s agenda of making it too difficult to put anyone away for any crime.
To put it simply, don’t believe anything you read about the Innocence Project in the newspaper, including the details of the Chicago case.
Nov 5, 2009 - 11:21 am 2. David Thomson:Bob McDonnell’s “reactionary” college thesis crisis might have very destroyed his campaign in 2008—and especially in 2006. But this is 2009, and the secular yuppies are worrying more about their pocketbook issues. The cultural war stuff is being pushed way back on their priority list. I said over five months ago that Barack Obama is a marginalized president and unable to get any serious legislation passed in Congress. And so far that prediction has been extremely accurate. At that time, I said the odds were against the president by a 75-80% margin. It is now over 90%. His proverbial goose is cooked. Does one perceive that they are personally benefiting from Obama’s economic proposals? If the answer is no, the Democratic Party is in deep trouble.
The typical Yuppie since the early 1990s has not had to be overly concerned regarding their economic situation. They have had it made. Thus, these folks start getting increasingly goofier with their voting habits. The vast majority of them began emphasizing their attitudes on abortion and the other cultural war issues. That’s all over with. These suburban secularists are now going to focus almost exclusively on a politician’s stand on economic matters.
Nov 5, 2009 - 11:34 am 3. Eric:Years from now, when Obama’s long gone from office, his meme will STILL be “Hey, it wasn’t my fault. It was Bush’s fault I couldn’t get anything passed. It was Congress’s fault; they wouldn’t support me. It was the Americans’ fault they didn’t see the wisdom of my plans.”
It will ALWAYS be the fault of someone or something else that Barack Obama is not a success as President. Period.
Nov 5, 2009 - 11:42 am