75 Comments

1. Lem:

Individual bias per se is inevitable. The problem as I see it (I figure if I can see it a child can) is when they let it smother the coverage of the facts. I mean, when you start playing loose with dates of already covered events and not checking the validity of documents and so on, you may as well go door to door selling snake oil. Pardon me snake oil salesman.

Oct 27, 2004 - 11:50 am 2. Buddy Larsen:

You tell ‘em, Roger! The nerve, the Nerve, the NERVE of those people, using their unique position in the netherworld between the private and the public, to execute hidden partisan agendae on their unsuspecting clientele! It is morally, ethically, and traditionally, traitorious, seditious and just plain old dense-ass STUPID! Sign me up. Bur we do have to support the presidency, no matter what. We don’t want to ape our enemy.

Oct 27, 2004 - 11:51 am 3. Paul:

My take is the MSM will see a Kerry victory as validation for their Soviet style tactics and it will only further encourage their perfidy. A Bush defeat will signal that the Gramscian left is winning by installing a fifth column in the fourth estate, Hollywood, and academia. I believe it will mean that the wheels will be set in motion for an almost unimaginable catastrophe. This is the seed of the internal defeat of America in Viet Nam come to fruition.

Oct 27, 2004 - 11:58 am 4. Lola:

And even if Bush does win, we’ll make the MSM pay, simply for not doing their job properly.

Oct 27, 2004 - 11:59 am 5. ed:

Well I have to say I’m shocked that bloggers supporting Bush plan to be hard on Kerry if he take the presidency. You mean like the Left wing bloggers being hard on Bush? Unbelievable!

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:02 pm 6. Mikey:

I hope the plan,

is a cunning plan.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:05 pm 7. Lola:

Read Roger’s post again. It’s the mainstream media he’s referring to, ed.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:07 pm 8. Ben:

With luck a cunning plan more cunning than Baldric would invent.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:10 pm 9. David Gillies:

Reminds me of, “You can’t win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.”

Seriously, though, whatever the outcome of the election (and I’m reasonably optimistic of a Bush win), the MSM must have their feet held to the fire over this. ‘Gramscian’ is a very apt way of describing their behaviour. The entryist project is now essentially complete in academia - but a new generation of students is challenging the Leftist orthodoxy. The Internet has to act as a sea anchor (and eventually outboard motor) on the MSM as they drift leftwards. I think we can do it. There’s that old quip that the Internet perceives censorship as damage and routes round it. I’m not 100% sure that this is the Internet election, but if not 2008 will be, in spades. The MSM’s twin tacks of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi can only be interpreted as censorship.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:12 pm 10. Addison:

How you said that, made me think of the Obi-Wan scene in Star Wars. “If you strike me down….”

Hopefully, it will work out better than Lucas is managing with the Star Wars franchise, anyway.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:15 pm 11. Knucklehead:

David Gillies,

Good points. Regardless of who wins the Islamomurderers will not stop trying to kill we infidels. The MSM will not stop trying to fit the world to their preposterous view. The UN and EU kleptocrats will not stop trying to undermine the USA or stuffing their bankbooks. And France will not stop being an enemy of the US (see Plus Ca Meme at Winds of Change.

The Culture War (sorry, Roger) will not stop because of this election. Some on either side will believe they’ve won a victory but its just one battle, not the war.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:26 pm 12. Fausta:

Bush will win.

And Our strength will grow incremently in terms of influence and even economic power. And both will be at the expense of the mainstream media, no matter what.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:27 pm 13. ed:

MEDIA BIAS! LOOKOUT!

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:36 pm 14. Goof®:

Finally! This will be my last comment should Kerry win.

I did it (voted for Kerry) for you.

…and I smiled.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:48 pm 15. David Gillies:

Something else just struck me: we tend to see the rise of the blogosphere as a reaction to the biases of the MSM (the ‘nature abhors a vacuum’ argument). But it strikes me that the blatancy of the bias is somethig new, and it’s contemporaneous with the expansion of the blogs and other forms of non-mainstream journalism. Could the driving force be the other way around? Could the MSM perceive the blogs etc. as cannibalising the centre ground and the Right, leaving them nowhere to go but left?

As I said, this just popped into my head, but I don’t think I’ve seen it posited anywhere else. If it’s true, then we have the upper hand. It’s Gramsci in reverse. If we colonise enough of the market then the MSM can only retreat to the margins. On the other hand, I may just be full of crap.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:48 pm 16. Mikey:

As cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:49 pm 17. jerry:

If the DNC/MSM combine wins this election then it means that the Blogosphere is an overrated check on the MSM. In a test of wills television and the NYT will have demonstrated their tactical superiority over the net. Both the DNC and the MSM will adapt and suppress the importance of the Blogosphere by the next election cycle. If Bush wins, and the MSM decides that being in the pocket of a political party is a money loser then one of the networks will break the cartel and move back to the center.

Oct 27, 2004 - 12:56 pm 18. raf:

If Kerry wins, you can look for legal restrictions on the internet/blogosphere to reinforce the tactical advantage of MSM.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:12 pm 19. Samuel:

Roger, that’s not a threat that’s a damn promise. I’ll file that under my “no shit Sherlock” file. I indeed peersonally know John Kerry, he is living up to his amoral reputation known about in more inside circles. I will predict he will do more for the Democrats than Nixon did for Republicans. (And that is not good, is there a Reaganesque Democrat out there to save them? I sure don’t see him.)

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:19 pm 20. Lola:

Amoral reputation? Is there something us voters should know about?

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:27 pm 21. Rick Ballard:

Jerry,

You’re precis doesn’t address talk radio. Hugh Hewitt has done an outstanding job of developing a combined radio/internet presence that has significant impact. As a model it may prove to work better than the Rush/Hannity straight talk format. When you put those three voices together you’re reaching a combined audience that dwarfs any single element of the DNC/MSM colossus. I’ll grant that the DNC/MSM in toto have a larger megaphone but the Gramscian drivel being peddled keeps ringing up ‘No Sale’.

I wonder what Glen’s up to this week?

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:30 pm 22. ed:

I love the condescension here. “If Kerry wins it’s because the voters were fooled by the MSM!” Come On! Give regular people a sliver of the credit you give yourselves. People can see through the crap they are given. If Kerry wins, it’s because the voters preferred him.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:30 pm 23. jerry:

raf:

I don’t the think the Kerry will take action against the blogosphere if he wins. After all he will have demonstrated that its importance is overrated. If he loses, I think that the Democrats might try to extend campaign finance laws to cover blogs. They would need bi-partisan support to accomplish this but I don’t think John McCain will sign up to it. I would like to say that Courts would hold that attempts to restrict the speech of bloggers violates the first amendment but given that they upheld McCain-Feingold I am not optimistic on this score. The Courts have turned the first amendment on its head. Originally it was only meant to protect political speech but now it protects any kind of speech or behavior except political speech. You also have to understand that Kerry will appoint judges whose view of the first amendment is informed by the minorityís rights to suppress majority opinion. Look for the US to become more like Canada where so-called “hate speech” laws are used to suppress unwanted speech.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:37 pm 24. DennisThePeasant:

Goof: This will be my last comment should Kerry win.

At last, a reason for voting Kerry that I understand.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:42 pm 25. DennisThePeasant:

raf and jerry

I’d be interested to see how he could get such legislation through a Republican Congress. And as far as getting McCain involved…given the ’success’ of McCain/Feingold in this election, anything relating to political finance regulation coming from that boy is doomed as doomed can be.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:47 pm 26. jerry:

Rick:

I was simply stating an hypothesis not making a claim.

Ed:

Your position is tautologically true as stated. However, people use information provided by the media, MSM and others, to develop their preferences. The purpose of any PSYOP/Propaganda campaign is to form impressions that last only as long as necessary, i.e., in the voting booth next Tuesday. Buyer’s regret is irrelevant on the 3rd of November. Look what the DUI charge did to the Evangelical vote in 2000. I bet a lot of the folks who stayed home regretted it on Wednesday morning. The DNC/MSM combine achieved the goals of any PSYOP campaign. They changed perceptions long enough to have a major effect on the electorate.

Reference to post above. I have to reconcile what I wrote with what I meant. [In other words I did not write very clearly] What I was trying to say is that the suppression of alternatives to the MSM would be a bi-product of appointing judges who would construe hate speech laws as trumping the first amendment. Kerry need not take any specific act to reduce the influence of alternative information sources. All he needs to do is make sure that opponents run afoul of hate speech laws.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:51 pm 27. Paul:

ed:

“If Kerry wins, it’s because the voters preferred him.”

This presumes no voter fraud, and no legal shenanigans.

It also presumes intelligence on the part of the “Rock the Vote to stop the draft” contingent, who may or may not be a deciding factor.

It also runs contrary to Evan Thomas’s statement that MSM shilling for Kerry is worth 15 per centage points.

It also invalidates everything anyone with a grain of sense knows about the effectiveness of propaganda.

In short, without media complicity, Kerry would’nt stand a chance.

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:52 pm 28. Salt Lick:

Last paragraph of Glenn Reynold’s column at Tech Central Station, today.

“Which brings me to my last prediction. Actually, it’s one I’ve made before: ‘[I]f Big Media let their position go without a fight to keep it by fair means or foul, they’ll be the first example of a privileged group that did so. So beware.’ I think we’re already beginning to see signs of that backlash, in the wake of the humiliation visited on Big Media by RatherGate — and the press establishment’s general lack of enthusiasm for free speech for others (as evidenced by its support for campaign finance “reform”) suggests that it’ll be happy to see alternative media muzzled. You want to keep this media revolution going? Be ready to fight for it.”

Oct 27, 2004 - 1:55 pm 29. Terrye:

ed:

I am a Democrat. I am voting for Bush. These are well known facts to anyone who comes here at all.

The reason for this is that the media has made such a whore of itself for the Democrats and the Demcorats have made such whores of themselves for the likes of Moore and his ilk that I have lost faith in them. These are serious times the Dems are not serious about anything but getting their way.

So if the Democrats win, you ask yourslef did they win fairly or did they use the msm to steal this election? If you care about the answer and you voted for Kerry anyway then you voted for the wrong man.

If Kerry does win I intend to treat him with all the fairness and open mindedness that he and his followers treated the Bush camp.

Gotta problem with that?

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:12 pm 30. someone:

Clinton made the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon.

But it wasn’t worth the tradeoff.

Samuel, have you gone all pessimistic on us?

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:12 pm 31. Frederick:

Samuel:

I think you’re right about Kerry and the consequences for the Democrats if he were elected. But the price will be too high to pay. I don’t know Kerry, but I remember him well as an undergraduate in New Haven. He thinks that he is participating in a game that he and those with similar backgrounds have been playing together for thirty years, like a Roman aristocrat pursuing a cursus honorum to surpass his fellows in glory by being elected consul. He hasn’t the imagination to conceive of what would face him if he were elected president. The potential dynamics underlying what he would face are sobering to contemplate. A conclusion by the extreme Islamicists that God has confounded the Americans and foreshadowed their destruction. A conclusion by America’s friends that America is a grand exercise in frivolity. A conclusion by rural, flyover-state people that, if the superior people in places like New York City and Washington D.C. don’t want to have a real War on Terrorism, then let the terrorists blow them and their damned buildings up. A conclusion by Republicans and pro-war Democrats, if the election is close, that they have been disenfranchised and personally endangered by a conspiracy of Europeans, left-wing radicals , the MSM, and illegal alien voters like one of the Ohio voters fraudulently registered by the Democrats, a Somali illegal alien who had been arrested for planning to blow up a Columbus shopping mall. Kerry is not a serious man but these are, alas, very serious times. We’re going to find out soon whether America is a serious country.

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:30 pm 32. Knucklehead:

Ed,

I’m not sure anybody here is putting together their “Oh, shit, Kerry won” whine.

The MSM themselves estimate their influence at approx. 15 points (see the comments from that Newsweek Chief of Propaganda Ops several months ago). Since they are a bunch of elitist, self-important jerks who readily misinterpret the signs and signals around them let’s assume their influence is only 1/3 of that - 5 pts.

The “equally divided” US we see is partly a creation of the MSM’s party bias.

Bush has to overcome (at least) a 5 pt. deficit at the outset to overcome the effects of media bias. Given that its been a while since any candidate got anything over 50%, if Bush wins 52-46 or thereabouts, its quite an accomplishment. We have to go back to GW-41 to find a popular vote majority. Clinton won his first term with less than 44% of the popular vote and didn’t get 50% in his second term (I seem to recall the MSM awarding him a “mandate” at that level).

But none of that is actually the matter at hand. The matter at hand is continuing the battle against MSM biogtry and influence. Bringing “choice” and “truth” to the people!

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:34 pm 33. ed:

I stand accused of presuming the intelligence of voters and I am guilty as charged!

Terrye, no problem! You’re free to give him as hard a time as you like.

Also, Bush supporters don’t hold a monopoly on media hatred. They’re pretty much despised across the board.

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:39 pm 34. Terrye:

ed:

I see, so it is ok with you if the press deliberately lies to people in the hopes of effecting the election.

Good Democrat.

Oct 27, 2004 - 2:52 pm 35. ed:

Terrye, did you read what I said? I hate the media too. Pretty much everyone has a negative view of the MSM. Alas, this election is between Bush and Kerry and my idea views on the media do not affect my decision. Kerry voters hate the media too! And if Kerry’s elected we’ll still hate it I’m sure.

Oct 27, 2004 - 3:28 pm 36. Knucklehead:

Ed,

There’s plenty of reason to be dissatisfied (even to the point of abject hatred) with the MSM. They’ve got a constitutional “franchise” that has the side effect of opening the money spigots to them. And they fail miserably in their social role.

All that said, however, and speaking specifically about this particular election, what does a Kerry supporter have to be disatisfied with re: the MSM? They couldn’t be much more openly in the tank for his candidacy or more openly hostile to the incumbent.

Oct 27, 2004 - 3:45 pm 37. jerry:

Ed:

Hating the media in no way effects its ability to conduct psychological operations (PYSOP). People process the information that is served up. Soviet readers knew how to read between the lines in Pravda and Izvestia. [There is no news in the truth and no truth in the news.] Even though no citizen of the USSR believed what was in the papers doesn’t mean that their perceptions were not warped by there one and only source of information. If the media hater tunes out the MSM then the PSYOP doesn’t work but as long as the hater takes the MSM as his sole source then he can still be manipulated.

It sounds like you look to alternative sources for checks and balances but most people be they left or right do not. That is what gives the DNC/MSM complex its power to influence elections.

Oct 27, 2004 - 3:50 pm 38. Charlie (Colorado):

Finally! This will be my last comment should Kerry win.

In other words, you never had any interest in the conversation at all — you just (as we suggested) were here to get in the face of people who might vote for Bush.

In other words, you’re the salt of the earth. A man of the land. You know…

an asshole.

Oct 27, 2004 - 4:31 pm 39. Katherine:

ìEven though no citizen of the USSR believed what was in the papers doesn’t mean that their perceptions were not warped by there one and only source of information.î

You are absolutely right, jerry. Otherwise none of us would be so astonished at the actual experience of the liberal democracy as opposed to our imaginings of it. My favorite example of this difference was expressed by my Russian friend who, when asked what struck her the most about the US responded: ìPeople are kindî.

Oct 27, 2004 - 4:43 pm 40. jill bryant:

You are kidding, right? The MSM that sat absolutely mum for a good three years while Bushco started manipulating them - denying access to those who asked the wrong questions? I used to think they were liberally biased myself - sure, why not - I heard it a lot from the right and was sure they wouldn’t say it unless they had a legitimate complaint. So when you couldn’t breathe without reading a new story about Monica, fine, the media just dealing with a story to excess since it was so salacious - that sounds about right. And then Bush came into office and not a peep - reversing environmental laws, okay? And then we get farther into the term - Cheney refusing to turn over papers — kind of a scandal — nothing.

You point out to me where the mainstream media has been tailing Bush in one/half the way Clinton was dogged and I will believe you. You’d think Bushco not wanting to hold 9/11 hearings would be a big deal, or Richard Clarke coming out with Bushco ignoring all warnings of a terrorist strike, or refusing to retaliate after the Cole, how about changing their minds for why we went into Iraq (I know Wolfowitz said WMD was the reason they could all agree on - pretty amazing quote, wouldn’t you say?), Kristol (as in Iraq is Kristol’s war) has said Rumsfeld and Rice have not done a good job. Somehow these all seem more valid for news coverage than Monica. Yes, the MSM has been allllll over it (that’s sarcasm - I only find out about this stuff from reading actual books.)

And, I really love your plans to support the possibility of Kerry being President before he has even set foot in the White House. When Bush got elected, I thought okay, I’m tired of the country being up in arms (over the big Monica lie) - this will be a much better term and he is going to try and pull the country together - that’s great. No one could be worse from day one - the best example, of course, was much farther in the term. What was the point of the gay marriage amendment? All the supporters said they knew it wouldn’t pass — nice way to separate everyone out on an emotional issue.

You, dear sir, are talking through your hat.

Oct 27, 2004 - 5:04 pm 41. Kyda Sylvester:

Win, lose or draw, the day of reckoning for the MSM is here. Count me in.

A second campaign must be waged to eliminate, to the extent possible, voter fraud. Laws requiring proof of citizenship at registration and picture ID at the polls are essential and the argument that such rules are discriminatory is hogwash. Who and where are all these people (minorities and poor folks we’re told) who live their lives underground? Who don’t have bank accounts, don’t drive automobiles, never cash payroll checks, never rent videos, never travel by plane, train or Greyhound? And certainly anyone who has gone through the rigors of becoming a citizen would have the means to demonstrate such and probably would do so with pride.

We’re at the point where honest people who don’t vote in accordance with the dictates of MSM or Hollywood or the radical left or power mad Democrats are in danger of losing the instrument of their self-determination. As a nation, we’re in danger of losing whatever faith we still have in the electoral process. We simply can not allow this to stand.

Oct 27, 2004 - 5:06 pm 42. jerry:

Err Jill:

You are bit behind the times. The Supreme Court upheld Cheney’s claim of executive privilege. It wasn’t 5:4 either. All of Clinton’s claims of executive privilage were shot down 9:0 by the Supremes.

Richard Clarke was shown to be a horse’s ass. There were no specific warnings of 9-11. The August 6th memo just repeated the amazing fact that UBL wanted to have a mass casualty attack in the United States. The 9-11 commission also demonstrated how inept Clarke was when he to the CIA’s consternation tipped off the UAE that one of the Royals was hanging out in Afghanistan with UBL. A week later the camp was empty.

No, Bush did not want to do a drive buy after the Cole. Unlike the Clinton team he wanted plan to go on the offensive.

It was Gore who testified to the commission that the Cole wasn’t serious enough to do anything execpt send in the FBI.

So there you have it. Another ABBer shot full of holes.

Oct 27, 2004 - 5:35 pm 43. Terrye:

Jill:

Let me guess: you are a Micahel Moore fan. One can always tell because they bear a strong resemblance to mental patients having undergone a lobotomy. They can not think.

Do you remember any intersting exposes in the 90’s by the press on the growing menace of Islamic radicalism? Me neither.

Do you remember anyone ever asking Bill Clinton for proof when he announced that Saddam had weapons, would use them and should be removed from power? Me neither. not a frigging peep out of them.

Do you remember ever seeing Richard Clarke or any other member of the Clinton administration going after Osmam even after they tied him to the embassy bombings? Do you remember any member of the press asking them what their “plan” was? Me neither.

Do you remember any one in the press ever criticizing Clinton for going to church or praying? me neither.

Do you remember anyone in the press calling Clinton a homophobe for signing the Defense of Marriage Act? me neither.

Do you remember any member of the press making an issue of the fact that Clinton gave contracts to Halliburton in Kosovo? me neither.

Do you remember any one in the press calling Clinton a liar and saying he mislead the nation because the men were not out of the Balkans in a year? me neither.

Do you remember anyone in the press saying that Clinton failed in the reconstruction in Kosovo because those people still do not have power all these years after the bombing? me neither.

so buzz off.

Oct 27, 2004 - 5:58 pm 44. Old Grouch:

RickGot an answer to your “talk radio” exception.Fairness DoctrineFCC Policy from 1949.Parallels section 315 of the Communications Act (which requires stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally-qualified candidates for office).Upheld by the Supreme Court [Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, 1969, but see also Meredith v. FCC, 1987].Dissolved by agency action in 1987.All it would take to bring it back would be a Commission that saw a “renewed need” and a cooperative Supreme Court. Some commissioners have already made noises about extending the Commission’s “decency regulations” into non-broadcast venues like satellite. (The Commission already enforces “children’s programming” regulations for cable and satellite-only channels.) And because leftist talk doesn’t sell in most markets, the commercial broadcasters, faced with the prospect of being required to run one hour of money-losing leftist talk for every hour of Rush or Hugh Hewitt, would dump Rush and Hugh and replace them with Dr. Laura. (Emmm… perhaps she’s too controversial: Try “Entertainment Tonight” Radio. Yeah, that’s safer.)And what if the Commissioners see fit to extend “fairness” to all “electronically delivered” media. Just imagine the joy of a rogerlsimon.com if every front-page post by Roger had to me matched by one like jill bryant’s ;-).

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:01 pm 45. Terrye:

ed:

Yes I read what you said.

So tell your candidate not to parrot whatever crap the poress might come out with just to win an election.

I remember Edwards out there doing the whole AWOL thing the day after the bogus forgeries hit the blogs. And this most recent crap from the NYT is like a gift Kerry just can’t say no to. Who cares if it is true?

So don’t use the press to trash your opponent and then say gee we don’t like them either.

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:02 pm 46. Old Grouch:

D**n, thought I’d gotten all the typos (but then there’s always one more, isn’t there?):”…every front-page post by Roger had to be matched…”

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:09 pm 47. cr13233:

yeah, the liberal media. The one with Sinclair, Fox news, MSNBC and CNN, the pandering wannabee. Corporate consolidated outlets everywhere. The truthsayer NBC, owned by GE, the largest military contractor.

The liberal media that just shredded our president over his remarkable debating skills. The media that had countless “gotcha” moments to go after him on yet waited patiently for Kerry to talk about the VP’s very out in the open, 35 year old paid member of the campaign- daughter.

The media that went after the President so hard before the invasion. The media that accepts a president who doesn’t give press conferences.

The media that when the polls say Kerry has a 3 point lead it’s a “virtual tie” but when Bush has a 1 point lead it’s “a 1 point lead”

The media that parrots Drudge reports that are completely unfounded.

There is no liberal media. I’m not sure there’s much of a real media at all anymore. Which will make all of you very happy. With this media, Watergate would have just been a hotel that had a break in once. Ho-hum.

The sea is angry my friends….

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:10 pm 48. Jamie Irons:

jill bryant

You’re new here, I believe.

Welcome.

We all rant from time to time, don’t worry about it. But it’s a good idea to get one’s facts and dates right before setting out. You wrote:

Bushco (sic) ignoring all warnings of a terrorist strike, or refusing to retaliate after the Cole…

The USS Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000. Before the 2000 presidential election had even ocurred. But I’m sure you would have supported the Bush administration in a quick attack (on who, exactly?) if they had launched it on January 23, 2001. That would not have been seen as unwarranted or too warlike. Democrats would have stood behind the new president and would have wished him well.

Jamie Irons

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:11 pm 49. cr13233:

Have you heard that Al-Qaqa is the size of Manhattan?

That both military units that went through were not asked, and did not search it?

That the Times article was based on substantial documentation?

Use your common sense. Inspectors were there 2 weeks before the military was there and everything was intact. By May, the place was completely looted and the US admits they weren’t guarding it.

Yeah, that evil liberal press, printing inconvenient facts.

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:20 pm 50. Katherine:

Cr13233

Yep, you are right. You know, I have heard from a senior CIA official that the missing explosives were in fact shipped to terrorists in Syria by 101st Airborne by personal order of Donald Rumsfeld. But nobody will report this because the dissent is crushed, dude. Power to the People!

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:30 pm 51. Terrye:

cr:

No liberal media? Well don’t tell them that.

Most journalists consider themselves liberal, only a fraction say they are conservative.

According to Pew research most people don’t have faith in most of what the press says and does consider them biased.

And I am not voting for Bush because he can debate, I am voting for him because he can decide.

For a president it is far more important that one be able to make a decision than it is that one be able to bullshit endlessly.

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:38 pm 52. Terrye:

cr:

BTW, the period of time was more like a month than two weeks and no they did not inspect the weapons. The Iraqis just told them they were all there.

Why did the UN not destroy them when it had the chance? Why did the UN not say something before May 2003? Why did the UN contact CBS days after they wee informed that ElBeradai was not going to get the Bush administration’s support for a third term?

Were the 101st and the 3rd ID lying? Does Kerry know something the inpsectors do not know? Why say Saddam had no dangerous weapons and then complain dangerous weapons are missing?

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:45 pm 53. Randy Paul:

Our strength will grow incremently with a Kerry victory in terms of influence and even economic power.

Incrementally:

1.) The process of increasing in number, size, quantity, or extent.

2.) Something added or gained: a force swelled by increments from allied armies.

3.) A slight, often barely perceptible augmentation.

4.) One of a series of regular additions or contributions: accumulating a fund by increments.

5.) Mathematics. A small positive or negative change in the value of a variable.

I think number 3 describes it.

Oct 27, 2004 - 6:57 pm 54. jill bryant:

Kudos -

I actually didn’t think you would post my comment.

First of all - I am not a Michael Moore fan. I have not seen F9/11 because I saw Roger and Me and didn’t feel it was really a documentary. I did, however, see Bill Moyers coverage of the lead up to 9/11 and I am a fan of his and I think there was some usage of the same footage (Bush in the classroom).

If you are going to say Richard Clarke was proven to be a horse’s ass (where did that come from?) and dismiss anything from even a Republican source, I don’t know how you make your judgment calls - this is a man who worked for Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. The bi-partisan 9-11 commission certainly treated him with respect. Instead of addressing the warnings he talked about (I’m not just talking about the PDB - I’m talking about throughout - January - September). I’m not saying it could’ve definitely been stopped but…..they didn’t even try.

Okay - what source do you trust - Woodward? John Dean? Paul O’Neill? Do you trust the findings of the 9/11 commission?

The Cole was struck under Clinton’s watch but the FBI and the CIA did not agree that it was Al Quada until February (I think that’s the month - might have been March.) Bush wanted to go on the offensive? You mean against Iraq?

There was one post that had a lot in it. I have to go back to see what it has to say. I just remember the comment about Clinton going to church. You do understand why they talk about Bush in this instead of Clinton, don’t you? That is not a partisan issue. Bush said he takes information from God - I believe that makes his church going very relevant. Especially since the founding fathers did so much to keep religion OUT of politics.

Oct 27, 2004 - 7:51 pm 55. jerry:

Jill:

Welcome you are new here so I guess I should cut you some slack.

Here is the source. I personally know several of the 9-11 commissioners because I have worked in the Defense and Intelligence communities for quite a while. I know what Clarke said in closed, classified sessions. I read the current intel classified at the highest levels on a daily basis. In fact I saw the August 6th 2001 memo on August 7th 2001. I have been assigned to the FBI from the Defense Intelligence Community for four months in the summer of 2002. [It sucked.] I sat on the Afghan PSYOP working group in the Fall of 2001. That is just what I have been doing the last few years

So now that you know that I get my information from sources other then the newspaper please go back and do your homework.

Best wishes.

Oct 27, 2004 - 8:16 pm 56. Brown Line:

With all due respect to the present company, bloggers can no more displace the MSM than Linux can displace Windows: because the MSM has the money. As much as I appreciate blogs (and I’m typing this message on a Linux box), blogs will never be much more than an annoyance to the MSM.

Granted, in certain rare situations the blogosphere can affect the MSM. The CBS/forged documents story is one such instance - though then only because the documents were so childishly bad that the fraud was detectable even from a low-resolution PDF image. Don’t expect whoever perpetrated that fraud to make that sort of mistake again.

BTW, Jill, the CBS story comes to mind when I think of “liberal media”. Here is a story based on forgeries so crude that they shouldn’t have fooled a child, yet it is rushed onto the air by professional journalists who are so eager to nail Bush that they abandoned all professional judgement. Can you think of anything in the Clinton years that comes close to that? I cannot.

Oct 27, 2004 - 8:19 pm 57. Barrett:

Jill,

You wrote, “Ijust remember the comment about Clinton going to church. You do understand why they talk about Bush in this instead of Clinton, don’t you? That is not a partisan issue. Bush said he takes information from God - I believe that makes his church going very relevant. Especially since the founding fathers did so much to keep religion OUT of politics.”

First, let me say that I believe in the seperation of church and state. However, that has come to mean something different today than during the formative years of America. If I remember my history correctly, George Washington (remember him?) wrote and told the Indians that they would do well to learn about and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. History views George Washington in a favaorable light. The point the founding fathers made was not the suppression of religious speech or the absence of morality, but about state sponsored religion.

As far as Clinton going to church is concerned, what do think he was doing there? Either he was there to ask for forgiveness from God (and there is quite a bit of ground he would need to cover) or he was a potted plant simply there as a photo op in an effort to con people of faith in America.

What say you?

Oct 27, 2004 - 8:33 pm 58. Barrett:

Brown Line,

I have struggled with your question for some time.

The MSM has the money and infrastructure to collect and distribute the “news”. The blogosphere has the brilliance and collective wisdom of many minds where facts and positions can be vetted outside the arena of corporate politics.

My hope is that the blogosphere can provide useful facts and analysis for those who participate and can in some sense become the “conscience” of the MSM (as in Rathergate). The challenge for the blogosphere is how gain a mass audience when consumers of news cannot easily evaluate the source of information or an author at times.

In fact, the MSM has supposedly won this “trust”, becoming the Fourth Estate. The abdication of the pursuit of truth by the MSM is what is so scary about this political season, especially given what is at stake (we are at war with Islamic radicals who have declared that they plan to destroy our society).

The MSM has had the advantage of serving up the news to an audience that all to often does not check to see if the facts are correct. We will see if this changes. If the blogs are factually based, well thought out and persistent, maybe a long-term change can happen?

I’d like ot know what others think.

Oct 27, 2004 - 8:57 pm 59. cr13233:

Terreye

While most journalists may describe themselves as liberal, the corporations they work for certainly don’t. Whatever their personal politics, real journalists try to find the truth, what gets on the air or in print is another matter.

As for the latest on what really happened in Al Qaqa

>>BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 27 - Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.

The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks.

Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers’ responsibility.>

Also, the dump had been monitored by the UN for 10 years. They were under seal. They did not have the authority or mission to destroy these explosives. They were not WMD, they were legal. But the inspectors knew how dangerous they were and that’s why the repeatedly warned the US about them.

Oct 27, 2004 - 9:33 pm 60. insatty:

Roger speculates about the MSM should Kerry win. But what if W pulls this out? Look at the apparently insurmountable forces aligned against him: the MSM for sure, Millions of Hollywood dollars, Michael Moore’s movie, the terrorists trying to game our election, Eurotrash leaders, an unhinged Democrat party repeating outlandish conspiracy theories, high oil prices because of natural and free-market causes, the UN attempting to hide the Oil-for-Food and IAEA scandals, 80% of American Newspapers, etc. . . .

W’s victory will be an amazing underdog story the MSM never covers honestly.

Oct 27, 2004 - 9:40 pm 61. Rufus T. Firefly:

jerry patiently explains: “I personally know several of the 9-11 commissioners because I have worked in the Defense and Intelligence communities for quite a while.”

Splendid and spot on. It’s a relief to know that someone, with authority, may deftly and convincingly refute all the unfortunate “facts” that have been disclosed publicly about the misdoings of the Bush adminstration. “Facts” that have been irresponsibly reported by a compliant media, with the heroic exception (we should proudly note) of Sinclair, Fox and many other media conglomerates, which I like to call the Patriotic Alternative Media (or PAM), providing the necessary counterweight to the inherent bias in certain distasteful facts.

But forget that for now. I look forward to specifics about your view on how, as you observed in an earlier post, Richard Clarke showed the horse’s ass. Other than what has already been made public in the french-like MSM media, I’m encouraged that your privileged position in service to the Defense and Intelligence communities has thus impacted your own intelligence. It wasn’t just one horse’s ass, was it? After all, events argue to the contrary that you have had the opportunity to stare at a stable full of horses asses.

Oct 27, 2004 - 9:48 pm 62. cr13233:

terrye

sorry for the misspelling last post.

The army divisions that went through have said (and the pentagon confirms) that they were not tasked with looking for weapons there. They didn’t look. It’s documented. Look it up.

And if readers completely dismiss real outlets like the NY Times, Washington Post, AP, Reuters and depend on Drudge and Fox, then God help us all.

Combine real media with your favorite pundits and at least you’ll have an informed opinion.

I hate the Times, Post et al about half the time, which these days, is probably about right.

But they are right on this story.

Oct 27, 2004 - 9:49 pm 63. Hylas:

If Kerry wins, I expect the Media to turn on him after a brief honeymoon period. When the Michael Moore faction starts its power struggle with the centrists the Media will joyously play along. The class-interest of the Press is stronger than their party allegiance. They donít care about the damage done to the Democratic Party any more than they care about damage done to the country. Their class ideology demands ìdissentî and ìcontroversyî. If they donít have a controversy theyíll manufacture one. Caught between a hostile world, a Republican controlled congress, and a divided party, Kerry will be neutered. Expect a second Carter or Hoover administration.

Our time would be best spent winning over reasonable centrists. We have to increase the percentage of the electorate resistant to attempts to frame the national narrative in terms of breathless Sy Hersh and Bob Woodward style muckraking. Otherwise any president who resists pressures from the press will be painted as ìrigidî and ìideologicalî and ìdeludedî. Any president who plays along with press hysteria (like Kerry) will be lauded as ìreasonableî and ìcentristî.

Ignore the scrawny Moore-watching skater-kids who think the army wants to draft them because MTV said so. Theyíll grow up someday. And ignore readers of - theyíre too far left. The problem is to reach people who read The New Yorker and The Atlantic Monthly. Theyíre reasonable enough to be convinced and influential enough to make a difference. Otherwise the current pattern will continue. Encourage healthy skepticism toward the elite outlets ñ not just hack journalists. The hacks are just aping those higher up the journalistic social ladder.

I guess you could call this a Gramscian counter-attack.

Oct 27, 2004 - 10:03 pm 64. rcade:

When Roger Simon leads the bloggers to overthrow the mainstream media after Kerry’s victory next Tuesday, where will the bloggers find news to link to?

Oct 27, 2004 - 10:09 pm 65. wu-ping:

Jump The Shark or binge drinking?

Oct 27, 2004 - 10:39 pm 66. Morgan:

Several commenters have made statements to the effect that blogs are only good for analysis of information served up by media outlets. More or less true at present, though in many cases unreported information is available to anyone with a keyboard, a library card, access to multiple (competing) media sources, or relevant expertise.

But there is nothing that prevents bloggers from developing/hiring the capability to get their own information. Freelance information gatherers exist already - finding good ones may take some trial-and-error, but if enough bloggers and blog readers really want more information about [whatever], money can be made to flow to the investigation of that story.

There is every reason to believe that blogs can do this more effectively and efficiently than standard media outlets currently do.

This is because:

1) Expert analysis is available virtually around the clock. This allows new information to be painted into the overall picture efficiently and in real-time, allowing information gathering to be focused on the currently most relevant information.

2) Coverage is demand-driven. Stories covered are stories in which people actually are interested.

You could even consider those who pay for the investigation to be owners of the story - it could be sold to the big media (of course, then the motivation is profit, not desire for information itself, but the paradigm is a big tent). Would there be resistance? Sure, at first, but if the interest is widespread some media outlet will jump ship, and the wall will start to crumble.

Oct 27, 2004 - 10:40 pm 67. Katherine:

Look guys, it is not either or situation. MSM will continue to exist, but the power of hive mind of the blogosphere will have a positive influence on them. Blogs introduce an element of competition, the ìfact checking their assî into the media cycle. Regardless of whether people read the blogs, when a radio talk show host or Drudge pick up a blogoshere correction to the official news, it eventually forces some sort official explanation. And this will be happening more and more often.

Interestingly, if any of you bother to listen to people like Hannity you will notice that they mention blogs stories and blog analyses more and more often those days. Letís not be desperate here: little people started having real impact on big events.

And all the comparisons to operating system wars go only that far. There are other reasons than big money and power of evil Microsoft that prevent Linux from being more widely adapted: Linux is a superior product that is difficult to use while Windows is merely adequate, but reasonably idiot friendly. Guess which one most of the consumers will chose. The good news here that there we do not live in the times of Standard Oil when monopolies lasted decades and the innovation cycle is rather short. There will be a new corporation that will successfully compete will Microsoft. Similarly, the MSM monopoly will be challenged and blogoshere will play a critical part in that. But it will not happen overnight. Remember, the crumbling of the real Evil Empire took a decade.

Oct 28, 2004 - 12:38 am 68. Hylas:

Katherine,

Well said.

“It has happened many times in history that new systems will come along and, instead of obliterating the old, will surround and encapsulate them and work in symbiosis with them but otherwise pretty much leave them alone (think mitochondria)”

- Neal Stephenson

The point is that our government consists of 3 carefully balanced branches. The Press is acting as another branch without any kind of check. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It can police itself, but only with the help of the web as a post-processor and bullshit detector.

Without some kind of check, it will come to serve only itself (just like any other institution).

Oct 28, 2004 - 1:29 am 69. David Sucher:

Maybe Roger is simply joking..

Oct 28, 2004 - 4:19 am 70. jerry:

Rufus:

I a suspect a little sarcasm here so I will give two responses.

Assume non-Sarcastic. During the Clinton Administration a certain policy directive was under consideration, which Richard Clarke thought he was an expert. Well, there were specific directions from the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3I, several Defense Agencies and the State Department to make sure Clarke was not in the loop because he was a screw up. Ok…Does that show he was considered a Horse’s Ass in the previous administration?

Now for the dripping with sarcasm response. A lot of people think Intelligence is magic information that makes sure you get it right all the time. Most American’s believe what they see in the movies. The CIA and NSA can marshal a massive array of devices and know what is going on everywhere and all the time. That simple isn’t true. For the most part Intelligence is informed speculation. It is the realm of vaguely right versus precisely wrong.

Another thing most people misunderstand about “Secrets” is that they are often the least important component of Intelligence analysis. Most problems can, and are, understood through open sources not secrets. Secrets are only important are in time urgent situations like warning of attack, battle damage assessment or in support of some immediate diplomatic effort. Anybody with half a brain can use open sources to gain as good an understanding of a situation without recourse to secret intelligence.

Secrets are often classified as such not because of the information but because of the sources and methods required to get them early. I read the terrorist threat summaries almost every day and most of the time it takes less then a week for the information to appear in the newspaper. Sources and methods drive release dates. The reason the Enigma secrets were not revealed until the 60’s is because numerous South American countries still used Enigma type machines for diplomatic and military communications. From an intelligence value standpoint we could have started revealing that we broke the Japanese and Germans codes on September 1, 1945. We were protecting methods not secrets.

So there are two answers to your Horse’s Ass question. Yes, as in all endeavors there are Horse’s Asses out there. But there is always a “but” …Since intelligence in generally incomplete and imperfect you will seldom be precisely right and so-called surprises will occur from time to time. Until we harness the Norns to foretell the future I can guarantee that we will be surprised somewhere in the future.

Oct 28, 2004 - 5:02 am 71. WichitaBoy:

Katherine, –OT–

Linux is a superior product that is difficult to use

Linux is a superior product, but I must beg to differ with the latter point.

Linux is, at this point, just as easy to use as Windows or the Mac. I set my septuagenarian mother up with Linux because she had had so much trouble with viruses on Windows and she hasn’t looked back since. All my children have been playing on Linux for years and haven’t even known the difference. If old ladies and clueless little kids can handle it, it’s probably pretty easy to use. In fact, there are stories of employees who have had Linux swapped in for Windows over the weekend and haven’t even known the difference; they just thought it was a Windows upgrade.

What is holding Linux back then? One major factor is Microsoft’s monopoly power. Microsoft uses its monopoly to threaten any company like Dell that tries to give consumers a choice by offering fully functional Linux machines at a discount. Dell can’t survive if Microsoft won’t sell them Windows, so they cave. If people were given a fair choice, straight up, from the manufacturer of having the exact same computer with Windows or Linux, with the Windows one costing several hundred dollars more, then the “Windows tax” would be obvious and people wouldn’t pay it.

Then there is the issue of applications. Lots and lots of applications have been and are continuing to be written as Windows only. Even though all of the main applications now have complete equivalents on Linux, it’s the odd special-interest app which may throw you for a loop. Even though clever programmers have made many of the Windows binaries work under Linux straight out of the box, there’s still a compelling argument to use Windows if you’re dependent on some of these unusual applications.

It’s a chicken-and-egg problem because niche-market developers aren’t going to develop for Linux until there’s a large enough market.

Then there’s Microsoft’s monopoly control of its binary formats. Other programs can’t interact with the Microsoft files because Microsoft has made it impossible to read them. And its patents on such, once again using the power of the state to destroy any possibility of competition, because now it is illegal to read them.

And let’s not forget the human foibles of fear and laziness. Computers are scary and they break all the time and no one fully understands what’s going on underneath the hood so people tend to stick with what they (think) they know. Further, if you have a computer it almost surely came with Windows so why mess with putting something else on when you already have something that (mostly) works?

And now, back on topic, it’s the same thing with the MSM. People are lazy and would like to just look at the local newspaper and believe it, listen to the local CBS affiliate radio station and believe it. And people are fearful, some of them, of all those digital brownshirts like our gracious host who are out to warp their minds at the touch of a browser.

Oct 28, 2004 - 10:16 am 72. jerry:

Wichita:

Spoken like a true believer:

“Linux is, at this point, just as easy to use as Windows or the Mac. I set my septuagenarian mother up with Linux because she had had so much trouble with viruses on Windows and she hasn’t looked back since.”

The key word is you set up Grandma’s computer. Therefore, it’s not as easy as windows because she needs you to set it up.

The fact that she had virus before just means that she did have protection she required. I have a windows based system with both hard and soft firewalls, which I keep up to date, and I don’t have a virus problem. There is another factor here. Virus writers go after windows because that’s where boxes are. MAC and LINUS based machines aren’t where the fun is.

If you talk to the pros at the FBI and NSA they will tell you that any operating has vulnerabilities you are living with a false sense of security if you thing you are immune because you have linux box. One more thing, because Linux is open source you really don’t know what’s there. A sophisticated code writer could insert a module that looks, feels and smells right, is extremely useful and also has a trap door that nobody knows about. Again, itís just a matter of market share not level of invulnerability.

The Microsoft monopoly…

“What is holding Linux back then? One major factor is Microsoft’s monopoly power. Microsoft uses its monopoly to threaten any company like Dell that tries to give consumers a choice by offering fully functional Linux machines at a discount.”

I believe you are repeating obsolete charges here. This part of the antitrust held up in court. Microsoft cannot threaten to not sell windows to somebody offering a discount to a Linux box.

Here is what is holding Linux back. It is the lack of support for the general user. Because Linux takes a freewheeling approach to an operating system there is no support for non-expert. Support and configuration maintenance drives cost. Any Linux variant designed for grandmother is not going to be free. It will cost a lot of money. Face it, the Linux ethic is what prevents it’s widespread use, not Microsoft practices.

Oct 28, 2004 - 11:13 am 73. Katherine:

jerry,

Thank you for answering for me re: Linux. I do not have personal professional knowledge in the area of software, but very close second hand knowledge via my husband (it is his profession) and your explanation closely parallels his thinking.

It is a pity about Linux because UNIX based systems are more reliable than Windows.

Oct 28, 2004 - 6:38 pm 74. singingbone:

“Yes, we too have ‘plans.’”

It’s Dr. Evil!! Where’s Mini-me?

sb

Nov 2, 2004 - 5:40 am 75. SpaceCat:

Ooooh, dark plans. You are a dangerous man, Mr. Simon! Your power intimidates.

Feb 2, 2009 - 7:41 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: