TEA Parties Turn Into Pissing Contest

It’s Tax Day—April 15, the deadline for filing federal income tax forms.

What usually passes with a few (million) grumbles and some local news video of post offices packed with procrastinating taxs filers has has taken on added significance in the media this year as hundreds of TEA (as in, “Taxed Enough Already”) Parties are being held across the nation. This kind of protest should be welcome news in any democracy, but for a few prominent voices in the media, it’s little more than an excuse to misbehave.

Right wing news outlets and commentators, especially on FoxNews and talk radio, have been promoting the events ad nauseum, to the point that FoxNews is acting more like a corporate sponsor than a news organization. This at the very least blurs the line between advocacy and reporting. Many commentators on the right have also strongly criticized the mainstream media for failing to cover the events (quite a neat trick, considering that most of the criticism came before the events were held…)

On the left, while the news coverage has been mostly straightforward (with the notable exception of  this grandstanding CNN reporter who lost her cool with a protester), the commentary has been anything but. Numerous commentators have  belittled the events as staged propaganda planned and coordinated by right wing media and public interest groups, as if libertarians and conservatives can’t possibly think for, or organize, themselves.

The worst behavior has been on liberal cable news. MSNBC’s prime time hosts—Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow—along with other anchors on MSNBC and CNN have inexplicably chosen to disparage, ad nauseum, the tea parties as tea bagging (a slang term for an unusual sex act…Google it if you don’t know.) Liberal pack journalism has never been as vulgar and sophomoric as it was today.

You’d think the left, with its tradition of protest and civil disobedience, would honor citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Sadly, it seems the usual suspects on the left and right are incapable of rationally discussing the issues involved—taxation and the size and scope of government. Instead, the cartoon conservatives on FoxNews (Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity) and talk radio (Hannity, Rush Limbaugh) are using the events to shamelessly promote themselves while glibly criticizing the mainstream media for failing to cover that self-promotion. The loony liberals on cable news and in the blogosphere are using the events to mock and patronize conservatives, too often with a vulgarity that is puzzling and disturbing.

Both sides can go tea bag themselves. While more thoughtful media outlets—including the network news divisions and most newspapers—are covering the events responsibly without a red or blue filter, the loons on the left and the cartoons on the right are cynically exploiting the TEA Parties to boost their own ratings and circulation.

I wonder what the patriots who participated in the Boston Tea Party would think of the way Olbermann and Maddow, or Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh, are turning honest protest into a pissing contest.

One thing’s for sure. This isn’t the best moment to be swimming in the waters of American politics.

Newsprism

Political Bias in the College Classroom—Where’s the Beef?

Last week, the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian watchdog group, filed suit against officials of the Los Angeles Community College District. The suit alleges that last November, an LA City College public speaking professor interrupted a student’s speech about gay marriage, called the student a “fascist bastard,” and later threatened to have the student expelled.

The student’s speech included the dictionary definition of marriage and two Bible verses.

The ADF asserts that the student’s free speech rights were violated; assuming the facts in the case were accurately reported, that is unquestionable. No professor should censor free expression, much less insult a student based on his or her ideas.

The ADF goes on to assert, “the district has a speech code that has created a culture of censorship on campus.  America’s public universities and colleges are supposed to be a ‘marketplace of ideas,’ not a hotbed of intolerance.”

But are America’s public colleges and universities really a “hotbed of intolerance”? Or, are advocacy groups like the ADF really the agents of intolerance?

The ADF’s mission statement sheds some light on their notion of tolerance:

Defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

Notice the capitalization of “Truth,” which, according to the ADF, is Biblical. Founded by a group of far right wing Christian activists, including James Dobson and Donald Wildmon, the ADF can hardly be accused of tolerating secular opinions.

The real story here isn’t that college campuses are “hotbeds of intolerance,” as the ADF would have you believe. The story is a simple one: a single professor reacted in an arrogant and foolhardy way to the hot-button issue of gay marriage. The ADF is attempting to exploit this isolated case and the resulting litigation to pursue its own agenda.

Granted, too many liberals see the gay marriage issue in black and white: you’re either for gay marriage, or you’re a narrow-minded homophobic fascist bastard. Let the loonies on the far left think that way. And let the reactionaries on the far right think the opposite way: you’re either against gay marriage, or you’re an America-hating athiest commie pervert.

Most importantly, let both far left and far right views be expressed by students and professors; that’s how the marketplace of ideas works.

So the question remains, is there really a problem with liberal bias in academia? And if so, what should be done about it?

Many on the far right want state and federal legislation to mandate “intellectual diversity,” which to them means increasing conservative influence in adacemia through hiring and promoting more conservatives. The most vocal advocates of such legislation include far right talk radio hosts like Sean Hannity and fundamentalist Christian activists like Dobson and Wildmon—hardly agents of tolerance themselves—and conservative activist David Horowitz.

Horowitz publishes FrontPageMag.com, an online conservative forum, and runs the Horowitz Freedom Center, a conservative think tank. He relentlessly attacks what he perceives to be liberal bias in higher education, the media, and popular culture.  More power to him; his voice is a welcome counterbalance to all the liberal voices in higher ed, media, and pop culture.

Where Horowitz goes too far, however, is in demanding legislation to force changes in hiring and promotion in higher education. Fellow conservatives have scrambled in recent years to document the liberal bias Horowitz decries. Their work, however, is suspect. It begins with an assumption, then contorts logic and science to prove the assumption correct.

Last year, Horowitz found some friendly ears among Republicans in the Georgia State Legislature. For example, Representative Bill Hembree (R), Chair of the Higher Education Committee of the Georgia House of Representatives, co-sponsored legislation and held hearings on this issue of “intellectual diversity.”

A survey of college students was commissioned by the University System of Georgia to test whether bias among faculty is really a problem in the state. The survey was planned with input from faculty and from Republican legislators; unlike much of the work coming out of think tanks and advocacy groups, it wasn’t politically motivated.

The results did indeed show a significant degree of intolerance on Georgia’s campuses.

Contrary to what Horowitz and the ADF would have you believe, however, that intolerance didn’t come from faculty, but from students (many of whom, we can presume, have been indoctrinated by ideologues both left and right.)

47% of students reported that other students were tolerant of all viewpoints, while 21% of students reported the opposite. Of those who reported intolerance, 12.9% saw an anti-liberal/Democrat bias, and 10.1% saw an anti conservative/Republican bias. Sounds like a wash.

As for professors, only 13% of students reported ever having had a professor present his or her political viewpoint inappropriately in class. Of those 13%, nearly two in three said they still felt free to disagree with the professor.

That leaves fewer than 5% of students reporting any inappropriate bias by a faculty member…and considering that the average student learns from dozens of professors over a college career, it’s evident that political bias in the college classroom isn’t a problem at all.

Based on the survey, Representative Hembree no longer advocates “intellectual diversity” legislation.

Yes, there’s some liberal bias in higher education, the media, and popular culture. And there’s some conservative bias in business, the military, and the church. That’’s called pluralism, and it works just fine, thank you.

Do we really want to legislate an unnatural ideological balance in higher education? Isn’t that what the Fairness Doctrine, which is universally despised by conservatives, tries to do in the media?

Let the marketplace of ideas function without government interference.

Government interferes in our lives enough as it is, as every conservative well knows.

Newsprism

What’s Fair About the Fairness Doctrine?

Should the federal government regulate the content of broadcasts? If so, how?

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the Fairness Doctrine, which was intended to promote diverse opinions in broadcsting regarding issues of public concern. In essence, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to maintain a balance between liberal and conservative opinions expressed over the airwaves.

In practice, however, the Doctrine proved difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. It was up to regulators and, when conflicts reached the courts, judges and juries, to determine what was liberal, conservative, fair, and balanced (and we all know how easy it is to fudge the adjectives “fair” and “balanced.”)

There is no objective standard by which such a doctrine can be enforced. There is no such thing as an objective regulator, judge, jury, or broadcaster. If objectivity exists, humans don’t have the capacity to discern it…though most of us presume that our discernment comes closer to objectivity than that of others.

In 1987, Congress tried to codify the Fairness Doctrine, which for 38 years had been merely a rule enforced by the FCC, into law. President Reagan vetoed the legislation, prefering to let the free market determine what opinions could be broadcast. Bully for the Great Communicator.

Now, liberal politicians and broadcasters are trying to revive the Fairness Doctrine. Why? Because they believe the dominance of conservatives in talk radio is unfair and should be remedied with government regulation.

Liberal talk show host Bill Press, for example, believes that “there is no free market in talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly held, conservative media conspiracy.” Big surprise: a liberal radio host, unable to compete head-to-head, demonizes those rascally capitalists and wants the Fairness Doctrine resurrected.

The fact is that conservatives do dominate talk radio; no one would dispute that. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingraham…the list goes on, with not a single national liberal host who competes with them. (Ever heard of Randi Rhodes? Didn’t think so.)

Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Stabenow and Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, among others, are making noise about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine in order to mandate more balance in talk radio.

But if the government wants to impose its version of fairness on talk radio, shouldn’t it be required to do the same to broadcast television, Hollywood, the recording industry, newspapers, and the Internet—all of which lean to the left? Why single out talk radio when overall, the media, and especially the mainstream media, is still far more liberal than conservative?

The market (a.k.a., the people) has already spoken, and spoken loudly. Even with millions of dollars in private subsidies, liberal talk radio network Air America was a dismal failure. In market after market, liberal hosts flounder while conservative hosts prosper.

Newsprism has been among the most strident critics of the excesses of conservative talk radio, where emotionalism and ideology too often trump reason and truth (for example, here, here, here, here, and here.) But it doesn’t take a libertarian or a conservative to see two major flaws with the Fairness Doctrine:

1.) It’s impossible to enforce.

2.) It isn’t fair.

Not to mention that pesky First Amendment…or the Tenth.

Government should stick to regulating peanut butter and banking (however badly.)

Let the individual consumer decide what is and isn’t fair, or balanced, or liberal or conservative.

Newsprism

UPDATE: Bill Clinton said this on the Mario Solis Marich radio show: “Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side…”

But Barack Obama does not favor reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Will the Center Hold? Only If Both Sides Give

As the presidential election nears its climax, many are already looking beyond November 4 and beyond next January when the new president takes office.

Assuming the obvious—that Barack Obama will be the victor—the question becomes: in an Obama administration, can the center hold?

Critical challenges will face both Obama and the Republican opposition if that is to happen.

For Obama, the challenge will be to reign in the more extreme elements of the Democratic Party and govern towards the center. If he chooses to continue following his legislative bent, which is decidedly leftist, he’ll invite the worst obstructionist tendencies of an already enflamed right. His campaign has been run on a theme of unity, of bringing together disparate elements of the American nation. His predecessor promised to be a “uniter, not a divider,” then proceeded to divide the nation as few have in our history; Obama will have to demonstrate that he’s a man of his word.

For the Republicans, the challenge will be to act as a principled counter to the left-leaning agenda of the president and the Congress, which will move further into the Democratic fold on November 4. John McCain could play a key role in meeting that challenge; his refusal to go along with the increasingly shrill and unprincipled tactics of the more fringe elements of the right, for example, by taking Jeremiah Wright out of the picture, bodes well. So does the movement of so many thoughtful conservatives towards Obama, (Future Secretary of State) Colin Powell chief among them. (Who better to right the ship of state than General Powell, whose Powell Doctrine would have kept us out of Iraq and fully engaged us in Afghanistan?)

In a broader context, a post-election reconciliation could be hampered, or worse, if liberals fail to win with grace. Everything in his temperament and character suggests that Obama will epitomize both qualities in victory; much in the temperament and character of the Democratic leadership in Congress, and of many in the left wing media, suggests just the opposite.

That same reconciliation could be hampered, or worse, if conservatives fail to lose with class. John McCain’s temperament and character leave little doubt that he’d be in the forefront as a unifying force, and with a few exceptions, most Republicans in Congress will follow suit; but much in the temperament and character of the right wing press leaves plenty of room for pessimism.

Newsprism

False Report—Drudge Spreads Transparently Phony ‘Mutilation’ Story

Yesterday, a 20-year-old McCain campaign worker in Pittsburgh claimed to have been robbed at an ATM by a black man who, enraged by her McCain bumper sticker, carved a “B” into her face with a knife.

Drudge Report, ever on the alert for salacious stories and eager to discredit Barack Obama, ran this headline in all caps at the very top of the web site:

MCCAIN VOLUNTEER ‘ATTACKED AND MUTILATED’ IN PITTSBURGH

I was immediately skeptical of the story, primarily because it seemed improbable that a robber would stick around after a robbery long enough to see the victim’s bumpersticker. It seemed even more improbable that that robber would compound the robbery with an unprovoked assault, much less an assault based on something as innocuous as a bumpersticker.

Later, a photo of the young woman’s “mutilated” face was added at Drudge Report, also at the very top of the web site. My skepticism grew when I saw that the “B” allegedly carved into her face was backwards, indicating that it had been self-inflicted in front of a mirror. In addition, the “B” appeared to have barely broken the skin, as if made by a fingernail rather than a knife.

It has now been revealed that the alleged victim faked the entire episode.

Matt Drudge is no fool; he must have been as skeptical as I was and should have verified the story before featuring it so prominently. Instead, he has once again chosen to use his considerable influence to try to affect the presidential election, sacrificing news judgment and integrity for partisanship.

Just last week, Drudge ran a headline about a seventh grader who was allegedly called a racist for wearing a McCain t-shirt—as if schoolyard taunts merit international headlines—and he’s been less than objective in reporting on, and more than likely manipulating, the polls.

As I write, Drudge is running another headline, “Home ‘Shot Up Over MCCAIN Signs’”. This story reports that the home of a McCain campaign headquarters manager was allegedly vandalized with a pellet gun. According to the manager, Rog Coverely, the presence of two McCain campaign signs in the front yard is the only explanation for the vandalism, which at any rate hardly merits the description “shot up.”

Coverely notes, “this campaign is getting vicious.”

That’s quite an understatement.

Newsprism

Drudge Hypes Leftist Bias…IN THE SEVENTH GRADE!

DrudgeReport has gone into full campaign mode.

Today, Drudge is prominently running three stories alleging misbehavior by leftists in an attempt exaggerate the scope of such behavior as election day approaches. This is in part a reaction to the hyping of some bad behavior at Palin and McCain rallies in the blogosphere and in the mainstream media.

But Drudge goes too far with this headline: “7th grader called racist for wearing Palin t-shirt…” The story comes from a local TV station in Orlando.

Are we really monitoring the taunts of twelve-year olds now?

While Drudge also links today to two of the best commentators in the country, Pat Buchanan and Peggy Noonan, the choice of these three stories is highly questionable.

In addition to the 7th grade taunting story, an allegation has been made in Albany, Georgia, that a disabled man’s vote was fraudulently cast for Barack Obama rather than John McCain, and another allegation has been made in New York City that a man assaulted a McCain supporter with a campaign sign.

The alleged assault is a legitimate local story in the Big Apple.

The alleged voter fraud is a legitimate local story in Albany.

And the alleged 7th grade taunting?

A legitimate lead story in the school newsletter.

Newsprism

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Race—Media Liberals Match Palin’s Cynicism

The Associated Press’ Douglass Daniel, aided by fellow liberals at the Hollywood lefitst news and gossip site The Huffington Post, has called Sarah Palin’s “pallin’ around with terrorists” line and raised her by one race card.

In “Analysis: Palin’s Words Carry Racial Tinge”, Douglass writes,

Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims… Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism.

That’s not analysis, it’s spin, and spin just as cynical as Palin’s transparent attempt to call Barack Obama’s patriotism into question in the first place. When liberals evoke racism without a shred of evidence, they show themselves to be as self-interestedly obsessed with race as the closeted white supremacists on the far right, and as cynical as the disciples of Karl Rove.

Huffington Post is running Douglass’ “analysis” as their lead headline this afternoon, where, as of 4:00pm EST, he joins such political heavyweights as Bruce Springsteen, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Sheryl Crowe, and Paul Reiser on the front page. (True to their editorial standards, HuffPo’s editors have removed the last few words of Douglass’ piece, “perhaps more so if (McCain) wins,” without marking that edit with the usual ellipses.)

As a democracy, we get the government we deserve. With media this shallow and unprofessional, we deserve a government every bit as far-sighted and philosophical as our talk radio and TV sitcoms.

Newsprism

Tina Fey Rips Sarah Palin on the Bush Doctrine—but the Joke is on Liberal Hypocrites

Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin on last night’s Saturday Night Live was spot on, and the humor in the show’s opening sketch focused as much on Hillary Clinton’s monomania as on Palin’s inexperience.

The idea that Sarah Palin “doesn’t know what (the Bush Doctrine) is,” however, reveals a glaring degree of hypocrisy among liberal commentators.

For years now we’ve heard liberals rightly condemn the Bush administration for its repeated waffling on the rationale behind our invasion of Iraq. Are we there to protect ourselves from WMD? To create a presence in and stabilize the Middle East? To free the people of Iraq? To counter Iranian hegemony in the region? To spread democracy across the globe?

The so-called Bush Doctrine has had at least four iterations since the invasion, as Charles Krauthammer made clear immediately after the interview with Charles Gibson in which Palin (gasp!) hesitated and asked for clarification when asked her position on that Doctrine. Liberal commentators jumped on Palin’s hesitation as if a split second of thought were clearcut evidence of absolute ignorance. Ditto her question to Gibson about the Bush Doctrine: “In what respect, Charlie?”

Palin’s question, far from demonstrating ignorance, showed that, unlike Gibson, she understood the ambiguity of the question. Which Bush Doctrine are we talking about?

The joke here isn’t on Sarah Palin; it’s on liberal hypocrites like the Queen of Catty Maureen Dowd who decry as “sexist” overly harsh criticism of female Democrats, yet jump on Mrs. Palin at every chance.

Newsprism

Darkened Roots—The Real Meaning of Reverend Wright for Barack Obama

Forget Jeremiah Wright, the man. What does Jeremiah Wright, the icon or persona created in the media based on that man, really, really mean?

The reason the Wright story, or rather, the persona, resonated so loudly in the media is that it taps into two deeply emotional divisions simultaneously, one racial, the other political.

Wright isn’t just black, he identifies himself as black and, more to the point, fundamentally separates himself from the dominant white culture. He’s a black nationalist, a Christian version of Farrakhan who rejects America in favor of a radical racial vision of “nation.”

His nation is not ours—that’s at the root of black nationalism, and it strikes the American people as something utterly alien and antagonistic and irreconcilable, like communism or anarchism, or the Marxist liberation theology that underpins Reverend Wright’s philosophy. It’s a threat to the very center, the very core, of American society, a threat to its moral authority.

But the threat is also a racial one, which is why having the radical, black, and radically black persona of Jeremiah Wright associated with Obama has damaged his candidacy so badly. Wright, the black Marxist, was once described as Obama’s spiritual mentor; people are left to wonder if one’s spirituality can be so glibly divorced from one’s political philosophy, and, once again, why Obama doesn’t wear a neon flag pin.

What’s more interesting than this darkening of Obama’s roots is the fact that it was not orchestrated by Clinton or McCain so much as imposed on the nation by a two-week obsession with Wright in the mainstream media, especially the content-starved cable news networks. Nor was it the conservative FoxNews that ran this story into the ground so much as the liberal MSNBC and, to a lesser degree, the liberal CNN.

It was as if the liberal media that anointed Obama were having second thoughts. If even they can have second thoughts about Obama, who can guess the depth of suspicion he evokes among the “less enlightened” white working class voter?

Newsprism

FoxNews Fails History Lesson

Mistakes are inevitable in the 24-hour pressure cooker of cable news. Misspelled words, mispronounced names, technical glitches—these are to be expected.

But confusing Stephen Douglas and Frederick Douglass in a story about the Lincoln-Douglas debates?

That’s exactly what happened this morning when FoxNews mistakenly aired a graphic showing President Lincoln and former slave Frederick Douglass (video).

The fact that three news personalities didn’t catch the mistake is bad enough. News broadcasts involve more than on-air talent, however. Editors, directors, fact checkers, technicians, and graphic artists all have a hand in what goes out over the air.

No one at FoxNews managed to figure out that an African-American like Frederick Douglass was unlikely to have been running for office in 1858, when African-Americans couldn’t even vote.

As HL Mencken noted, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

Certainly not FoxNews’s owner, billionaire Rupert Murdoch.

Newsprism

FoxNews’s vapid cheerleading for the worst president in American history reminds Newsprism of another quote from Mencken: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Contestants in Cable News Race Run in Opposite Directions, Voters Lose

As three major cable news networks—CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews—compete for shares of the cable news audience, the result may be further polarization of the American voter. So says a new study by University of Georgia Professor Barry Hollander.

Hollander studied the news consumption of self-identified Democrats and Republicans using data from the non-partisan Pew Research Center. His findings: people gravitate towards news sources that reinforce their existing beliefs—liberals to CNN and MSNBC, and conservatives to FoxNews.

While this result is no surprise, combined with other trends in voting and media consumption it may portend further polarization among a less informed electorate.

For example, the more voters are exposed exclusively to opinions they already agree with, the more extreme their views are likely to become. In addition, the less news people watch, the less likely they are to vote. Voters who don’t identify strongly with either party are increasingly less likely to consume news, and therefore, to vote.

The trend is towards polarization and extremism in both red and blue states, while moderates give up on the political process and vote in fewer and fewer numbers.

Our democracy risks significant erosion of participation in, and faith in, the electoral process among voters in the center as two polarized, vacuous ideological camps face off over an ever-widening and increasingly empty ideological schism.

Like Nature, politics abhors a vacuum. What will fill the vacuum resulting from these trends is anybody’s guess.

Newsprism

The Worst of the Wild, Wild Web—from the Right, WorldNetDaily

Far-right fundamentalist news and shopping site WorldNetDaily combines sensationalistic reactionary stories with a glut of self-promotional product pitches and questionable advertisements masked as headlines and text links to produce a formula that attracts a substantial readership within the right-wing echo chamber.

Unfortunately, the twisted news judgment of WorldNetDaily makes TheHuffingtonPost look alomost like a legitimate news source, and the predominance of commercial content makes WND one of the most cynical and mercenery sites on the web.

No other news site does so much to embed ads into the news. As of 4:00pm, six of the first ten “headlines” at today’s WND aren’t news stories; they’re actually ads promoting products and services. These include:

An anti-global warming theory DVD for $29.95—just in case all the other free anti-global warming hocus pocus at WND didn’t satisfy your thirst for irrational propaganda. Publisher Joseph Farah insists that global warming can’t possibly be real because God promised Noah He’d never flood the earth again; why, then, do you need to pay thirty bucks to hear some hack say the same thing?

A full years’ worth of Advanced Artery Solution for just $239.40. This medical “breakthrough” (it’s actually just ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid, a common chemical used in thousands of products) promises that you’ll feel the difference as your arteries are cleansed of plaque (as if anyone can “feel” their arteries) and toxins leave your body (that you can feel—it’s called urinating.)

An anti-Darwin “documentary” that “proves” that Darwinism “has probably been responsible for more bloodshed than anything else in the history of humanity” (including the Holocaust) for just $4.95. ‘Nuff said.

A year’s subscription toWND’s own Whistleblower magazine for only $49.95. The next edition is devoted to “The secret life” of Barack “Hussein” Obama, “a Manchurian candidate – harboring an ominous secret agenda” who “reflexively, instinctively, will side with what’s wrong and harmful for America, and will oppose what’s right and good and wholesome for America. It’s uncanny.”

Other phony “headlines” include these ridiculous get rich quick schemes:

Turn $200 into $1.2 million with these hidden stocks! Get the 4 stocks you need to own in 2008.

$187,296 in 24 hours! Spare me just 7 minutes to show you how to copy my plan.

As if this shameless schilling isn’t bad enough, WorldNetDaily embeds literally hundreds of text links that look like normal hyperlinks in its news stories. In fact, these links are part of a third-party network called Kontera that promises ads “relevant” to the content. The ads, however, are only relevant insofar as any word in the English language that’s relevant to any Kontera ad can be hyperlinked. For example, when the word “doctor” appears in one WND story, Kontera embeds a link to an ad for health insurance. When the words “medical care” appear in the same story, an ad for Geico car insurance pops up.

Now on to the news.

The lead story this afternoon is tabloid-style sensationalism headlined, “Children’s hospital launches sex change for kids program.” It begins,

A doctor at the renowned Children’s Hospital Boston has launched a new program to drug children to delay puberty so they can decide whether they want a male or a female body … “We don’t think that demonic is too strong a word to describe this,” said a statement from the pro-family Mass Resistance organization. “It brings us thoughts of the Nazi doctors who thought they were doing good things.”

In reality, the “new program”—the Gender Management Service Clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital—is intended primarily to help children born with Disorders of Sexual Differentiation, which are pathologies that make it difficult to tell whether the children are male or female. Delaying puberty in such cases allows doctors to better handle the difficult decisions involved in assigning a gender to such children. (Note: the link above on the word “puberty” takes you to www.DealTime.com, where you can ”Shop Deals from 1000s of Merchants. Find, compare & buy.” How’s that for relevant?)

Another WND story proclaims that “Clinton’s family home reflects Democrat divide” and begins,

A new front has opened in the battle for the deeply divided soul of America’s Democrats – the front porch of the long-time family home of Hillary Clinton’s father and grandparents (where) a “Hillary For President” poster is tied to one half of the fence while an “Obama For President” adorns the other half.

The implication is that the Clinton family is divided over whom to vote for. In reality, though, the Clinton’s don’t own the home and haven’t for many years; a mother and daughter live there now, one of whom supports Clinton and the other Obama.

If all of this sensationalism, sex, spin and snake oil salesmanship isn’t enough for you, some of the nation’s best political minds offer their commentary at WND, including Chuck Norris and Pat Boone. Then there’s this laughable series of smears on Barack ”Hussein” Obama that Newsprism documented earlier this year.

Newsprism “follow(s) news and politics with a big shovel.”

In the case of the massive pile of bull called WorldNetDaily, we needed a steamshovel.

Newsprism

Oops, or Poops? HuffingtonPost Headline Embarrassing Mistake, or Outright Lie?

Hollywood leftist news and gossip site The Huffington Post included this headline today:

Legal Experts Predict War Crimes Prosecutions Over Torture Meetings

The problem? The article excerpted and linked to at HuffPo says exactly the opposite. Published in the Center for Independent Media’s Washington Independent, the story begins,

With nine months remaining in President George W. Bush’s term, virtually no legal analyst expects that anyone in his administration will face indictment and prosecution in connection with the torture of terrorism detainees.

The same story ends,

…the likelihood of retributive measures against the Bush administration for torture remains remote.

And in between? More of the same.

Is HuffPo really that incompetent? Or did the editors choose to utterly mischaracterize the article in their headline for partisan political purposes?

Newsprism’s guess: both.

Newsprism

The Worst of the Wild, Wild Web—From the Left, HuffingtonPost

Hollywood leftist news and gossip site The Huffington Post combines a buffet of cheesy far-left commentary from notable writers, politicians, activists, actors, scholars, more actors, and relatives of actors with a daily dish of celebrity gossip. Add in a lively and very functional reader comment section and you have a highly succesful formula.

Unfortunately, the news judgment of HuffPo can best be described as amateurish, and the editorial stance leans so far left it’s staggering.

A quick glimpse at today’s headlines proves the point:

Cindy McCain, The Recipe Thief, Says The Intern Did It—omigosh! Cindy McCain’s intern may have stolen recipes from The Food Network! Hold the presses, hold the presses!

Jenna Bush Tries Not To Flash the Pope—holy Marilyn Monroe moment, a gust of wind almost (almost!) blew Jenna Bush’s skirt up as she shook the hand of Pope Benedict XVI!!!!!

“Dancing With The Stars” Eliminates The Oldest Contestant—that’s right, Priscilla Presley, the “62-year-old actress” (she acts???) was eliminated because her “rumba was dull and technically imprecise…”

Thought Process Flowchart: Dr. Phil—Drs. Freud and Jung take note: here’s a peek inside the mind of Dr. Phil McGraw!!!!

Obama Offers Hanna Montana Treasury Secretary Job—just in case you’re a ten-year-old girl, or have the mentality of one, here’s a serious story about a skit from the Country Music Awards!!!!

Jon Stewart Mocks Obama “Bitter” Controversy—real news about fake news about real news … and the fake news was better than the real!!!!!

In terms of commentary, HuffPo gives our finest political thinkers (Alec Baldwin, Margaret Cho, Norman Lear’s little granddaughter) a platform from which to enlighten us. This sampling should get you up to speed:

Pope Should Start “Spiritual Renewal” With Bisexual God—those sexist Catholics are sooooo paternalistic, they should get God two lovers, one male and one female, or better yet, give God both male and female sex organs, to make up for all those centuries of patriarchy. (Here’s the definition of bisexual, HuffPo.)

The Alabama of Pennsylvania Mirrors New Hampshire—a media elitist slurs working-class Pennsylvania by comparing it to (and slurring) Alabama. To paraphrase Lynyrd Skynyrd, we Southerners don’t need you Hollywood and NYC fly-over types around anyhow.

How Many “Gaffes” Equal Incompetence? and One Candidate Has Failed the Commander-In-Chief Test—Twice—that no-good John McCain accidentally confused Shia for Sunni (and who hasn’t done that?) Then McCain “seemed to say that General Petraeus is the top military commander of our Armed Forces, telling the Associated Press that he wouldn’t shift the focus of the military from Iraq to Afghanistan ‘unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that.’” SEEMED to say? And it took two HuffPo bloggers to make that SEEM like a gaffe.

Then there’s the running gag called “Dickipedia,” described as “a wiki of dicks,” and its latest Dickipedia entry on John McCain. The entry calls McCain “cowardly” and an “asshole” and describes his wife as “freakish-looking over-plastic-surgery’d wife Cindy.” Then there’s this gem: “Though he once called religious bigots like Jerry Falwell ‘agents of intolerance,’ he now eagerly gets on his knees to fellate them to completion ask for their support.”

To top it all off, HuffPo asks the question, Is the Pope Even Relevant? At least as relevant as, say, Priscilla Presley, Hannah Montana, Dr. Phil, David Hasselhoff, Rob Lowe, comedian Keith Olbermann, and a topless Ann Coulter.

So that’s one day in the life of The HuffingtonPost—a big hit on the wild wild web, and a signal moment in the resurgence of yellow journalism.

Newsprism

McCain—Second Coming of the Comeback Kid

One Clinton was “The Comeback Kid” sixteen years ago, the other hopes to be the same in 2008.

While Hillary Clinton won three out of four primaries and the popular vote last night, she still trails Obama in both delegates and votes. Today, Obama has picked up several delegates in the consequential-yet-ignored Texas caucuses, which choose about a third of the state’s delegates.

The caucus votes are still being counted, but it looks like Hillary picked up just 7-9 delegates last night.

The real Comeback Kid of 2008 is John McCain. Still, all of the major broadcast and cable networks except FoxNews tilted their coverage towards the Democratic race.

Six weeks ago in the Resmussen survey, McCain was at 31%. Obama was also at 31%. Clinton was at 47%.

Coming out of the primaries and caucus, Rasmusson now has McCain at 62%. Obama is at 44%. Clinton is at 48%.

McCain gained 31%, Obama 13%, and Clinton 1%.

While the intrigues between Hillary and Barack fit perfectly into the television news template, the real story last night was a resurgent Republican Party led by a triumphant John McCain. The real story was the contrast between a gracious Mike Huckabee bowing out, and an Algore-like Hillary Clinton staying in.

If there’s a media bias these days, it still favors the Democrats.

Newsprism