Les Jones

Patterico digs deeper on a Chuck Philips LA Times story

Monday, November 17th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly, True Crime | Permalink | No Comments |

Patterico - What the L.A. Times Never Told You About an Inmate Who Was Close to Chuck Philips:

In sworn testimony given at a court hearing, Anderson accused Philips of conspiring with Suge Knight to suborn perjury and threaten him with messages from Knight that Philips allegedly smuggled into prison and delivered to Anderson. Anderson said that Philips had brought in documents relating to the litigation, so that Anderson could learn what people were saying, and tailor a false story to the facts in those documents.

After Anderson’s explosive testimony, Philips declared himself “flabbergasted” by Anderson’s claims, telling the L.A. Times: “This is the ultimate betrayal.”

But it appeared that someone was taking Anderson’s claims seriously: the FBI.

Anderson’s attorney said that the FBI had questioned Anderson about his interaction with Philips. And sources tell me that representatives from the FBI were present at the court hearing where Anderson made these claims.

The L.A. Times now faces something of a Catch-22 as regards the credibility of Anderson, because Anderson has now accused Chuck Philips of some pretty serious wrongdoing — wrongdoing that, if proven, could result in criminal charges. Wrongdoing that is apparently being investigated by the FBI.

This is all fallout from the Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur murders, and the subsequent press coverage, lawsuits, and investigations inside the LAPD. Patterico says that more information is forthcoming. Good stuff.

Previously:
- Go Read Patterico for the Dope on the LA Times/Diddy/Tupac Story
- The LAPD Biggie Smalls Case
- The Unsolved Mystery of the Notorious B.I.G (Rolling Stone)

Obama: “such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets”

Thursday, November 13th, 2008 | Guns, Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 4 Comments |

Above: A Secret Service agent guards Barack Obama using a weapon that the
president-elect says belongs “on foreign battlefields and not on our streets”

From Obama’s position on guns, posted on Change.gov and quoted by Uncle:

As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets

Judging from the picture of the AR-15-equipped Secret Service agent above those weapons do belong on our streets, as long as they’re being used to protect Barack Obama.

As always, the misleading label “assault weapons” is only ever applied to guns owned by civilians. When the police use exactly the same guns the media is more than happy to call them “police rifles” or “patrol rifles.” Funny how that works.

Tim Cavanaugh on l’affaire Edwards

Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

Reason - Every Man a Derrida - A nation on the verge of self-deconstructing:

This summer the National Enquirer caught former Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards (to Lakoff, an anti-corporate crusader; to Luntz, an ambulance chaser) meeting with his mistress in a Beverly Hills hotel. The Los Angeles Times demonstrated a pronounced lack of enthusiasm for the story in its own back yard, even putting out a notice to its bloggers to avoid mentioning it. Before long, Mickey Kaus and other prominent media critics had jumped all over the paper. As a participant in the fun (I approved the one blog post the L.A. Times had on the matter prior to the gag order; I and the author of the post were both subsequently fired, though the events were unrelated…as far as I know), I can say that while some of the principal players’ roles were misinterpreted, the overall characterization was accurate. The L.A. Times desperately wanted to avoid this damaging story, dressed up its desires in media-diligence drag (we were told not to comment until the paper’s reporters were through looking into the matter), and as a result was beaten and humiliated in its own backyard. Tim Rutten, the sanctimonious endomorph who leads the paper’s columnist lineup, ended up admitting as much in a column written after Edwards had confessed and everybody else had stopped caring. Bias unpacking: 100 percent successful.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Previously:
- John Edwards, The Musical!
- Edwards tidbits
- “Some young lazy slut has charmed away my brains”
- They oughta ask for that “Father of the Year” trophy* back
- Respect: DailyKos Down; National Enquirer, Slate, Mickey Kaus, HuffPo, Lee Stranahan Up
- Is a Politician’s Personal Life Relevant? According to John Edwards It Is
- Lee Stranahan Discovers the Democrat Null Zone
- Breaking: Edwards Admits Affair, Denies Lovechild
- John Edwards Sweating It Out Until Democratic National Convention
- Charlotte Observer Scoops LA Times on Edwards Lovechild Birth Certificate
- LA Times’ Tony Pierce Interviewed
- LA Times Covers Up Explosive John Edwards Story
- TV Preacher Caught in Affair Slash Love-child Scandal

Newsweek runs glowing profile of Sarah Palin

Friday, September 5th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

in 2007. Golly, Beav, I wonder if they’ll change their tune now that she’s the Republican veep pick?

“Half-term governor”

Thursday, September 4th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 2 Comments |

A Time writer refers to Palin as a “half-term” governor. I love it - the contempt just drips from the page. Has any Time writer referred to Obama as a “one-third term Senator”? I’m guessing not.

LATER: In comments Chris notes that the title of the piece refers to “Mayor Palin.” Whatever you do, Time, don’t give Sarah Palin any actual respect.

Kyle Smith on public approval numbers

Thursday, September 4th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly, Quotes | Permalink | No Comments |

“Incidentally, after eight years of abuse from every conceivable corner of the political universe, President Bush’s approval rating is around 28 percent. Barack Obama, after getting the most adoring media reception conceivable for nearly two years, is at 38 percent. McCain is at 34 percent. Is “saddled with historically low approval rating” really just a way of saying, “has misfortune of being president in era of 24/7 media attacks”?”
 – Kyle Smith

Micheal Silence on Palin media coverage

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

“What is it with the MSM and female candidates? Palin has run a state. Obama has run a rock concert.”
– Michael Silence

Respect: DailyKos Down; National Enquirer, Slate, Mickey Kaus, HuffPo, Lee Stranahan Up

Monday, August 11th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 2 Comments |

As a result of the John Edwards story, I’ve re-aligned my respect for some media outlets and writers:

DailyKos - even less respect now that they censored Lee Stranahan for his level-headed discussion of the issue.

National Enquirer - more respect now that they’ve added one more feather to their investigative cap. The days of saying a story isn’t true because it came from the Enquirer are long over. They also broke the Rush Limbaugh addiction story, the Dick Morris prostitute story, and the Jesse Jackson lovechild story.

Slate and Mickey Kaus - more respect for pursuing the story and keeping it in the spotlight.

The Charlotte Observer - not a paper I’d have cause to read, but they covered the story better than the LA Times, tracking down the child’s birth certificate from across the country and discovering the father’s name wasn’t listed.

Huffington Post - more respect, for following up on the Enquirer’s leads early on and giving an outlet to Lee Stranahan, and for not burying their heads in the sand as many other left-leaning media outlets did.

Breaking: Edwards Admits Affair, Denies Lovechild

Friday, August 8th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 8 Comments |

ABC News - Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate:

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today. In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter’s baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test. Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby’s birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

This as the National Enquirer runs photos of Edwards in the Beverly Hilton with the alleged lovechild and Rachel Hunter.

Trust the Enquirer over the LA Times, folks. The former is trying to bring you news while the latter is trying to control your news. The Enquirer’s motives are hardly idealistic - they’re pursuing scandalous news because it sells papers and puts money in their pockets. Yet the LAT’s motives are even less noble - they are acting as unofficial censors editing the news to favor the political party of their choosing, while pretending to paying readers that they’re something else.

John Edwards Sweating It Out Until Democratic National Convention

Thursday, August 7th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 1 Comment |

NewsObserver.com - Dems call on Edwards to address affair rumors:

With two weeks before their national convention, several prominent Democrats are saying Edwards must publicly address anonymously sourced National Enquirer stories that claim he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.

Democrats gather in Denver on Aug. 25 and Edwards, as the 2004 vice presidential nominee and a presidential candidate who won delegates this year, ordinarily would be a speaker.

Instead some Democrats say convention organizers will try to avoid the lingering questions if Edwards himself doesn’t talk.

Meanwhile “The National Enquirer”, which broke the lovechild story last year and has been increasing the pressure, has upped the ante with new pictures.

Broadcast Network News Covers Edwards Lovechild Story

Monday, August 4th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

But only on their late night talk shows, apparently. Leno and Conan cracked wise on NBC, while on CBS David Letterman snuck an Edwards quip into a top 10 list.

Top Ten Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident

10. Proposed bill to change Oklahoma to “Oklobama”
9. Offered Bush 20 bucks for the “Mission Accomplished” banner
8. Asked guy at Staples, “Which chair will work in an oval-shaped office?”
7. The affair with Barbara Walters
6. Having head measured for Mount Rushmore
5. Guy sits around eating soup all day
4. He’s voting for Nader
3. Offered McCain a job in the gift shop at the Obama Presidential Library.
2. Announced his running mate will be Andy Dick.
1. Been cruising for chicks with John Edwards.

Charlotte Observer Scoops LA Times on Edwards Lovechild Birth Certificate

Saturday, August 2nd, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 1 Comment |

Charlotte Observer - Birth certificate for Rielle Hunter’s child lists no father:

The birth certificate of a child who a tabloid newspaper claims is linked to former Sen. John Edwards doesn’t identify a father.

The certificate, obtained by The Charlotte Observer today, shows Frances Quinn Hunter was born Feb. 27, more than two months after an Edwards aide claimed to be the father. Andrew Young, a former Edwards campaign finance director, claimed paternity in a statement from his lawyer posted at the political blog mydd.com.

The girl was born at Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, Calif., to Rielle Jaya James Druck, also known as Rielle Hunter. Hunter, 44, was a videographer on Edwards’ presidential campaign last year.

Asked Thursday why no father was listed on the birth certificate, Hunter’s attorney, Robert Gordon of New York, said, “A lot of women do that.” Reminded that he and Hunter had publicly revealed the father’s identity two months earlier to the National Enquirer, Gordon said, “That’s a personal matter between them.” Gordon declined to comment further.

A newspaper on the other side of the continent with a circulation of 215,000 daily readers was able to track down the birth certificate. Yet the mighty LA Times with a circulation of 815,000 can’t be bothered to do the same legwork even though the hospital is two hours from their offices. The LAT just got pantsed.

Hat tip to Ace of Spades.

Patterico Digs into Former LA Times Writer Chuck Philips

Friday, August 1st, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

Patterico has more on the oddities involved in Chuck Philips’ reporting.

Keep digging, Patrick. The Chuck Philips/Suge Knight connection is a promising lead. The last chapter in Biggie Smalls murder hasn’t been written.

Previously:
- Go Read Patterico for the Dope on the LA Times/Diddy/Tupac Story
- Patterico Outs Michael Hiltzik’s Sock Puppets
- The LAPD Biggie Smalls Case

LA Times’ Tony Pierce Interviewed

Tuesday, July 29th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

Bloggasm interviews Tony “Keep Rockin” Pierce, the LAT staffer who told the LAT’s bloggers to not mention the John Edwards adultery story.

I spoke to Pierce for a few minutes on the phone today. He said the decision to send the email came after several senior editors at the Times met that day.

“The Opinion LA blog had already written about the rumors from the National Enquirer,” he explained. “We knew some of the other blogs wanted to write about it or were thinking about writing about it. And at that point we were like, ‘you know, we already have our metro desk working on a story and before we just kind of write a whole bunch of stuff about the National Enquirer article, why don’t we give our metro desk a chance to see what they can find.’ That’s when they said, ‘OK Tony, why don’t you write this letter to your bloggers.”

Of course, Pierce sent that email last Thursday. It’s Tuesday and the LA Times still hasn’t run the newspaper story they were supposed to be working on. I don’t think your reporters on top of this breaking news, chief.

LA Times Covers Up Explosive John Edwards Story

Monday, July 28th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 3 Comments |

Outside the Beltway notes the double standard of the LA Times in gagging their own bloggers from mentioning the John Edwards adultery story:

No, the reason I mention this ban is to point out that the Times was not hobbled by any such scruples when John McCain was accused — on much thinner evidence — of having possibly, maybe, sort of having had an inappropriate relationship with Vicki Iseman almost a decade earlier. In fact, a search of the Times website for her name brings up 101 results. Doubtless they’d argue that the Enquirer isn’t a credible source. But the same could be (and was) said of the two anonymous and admittedly disgruntled former aides who were peddling the Iseman story.

Consider how bad the LA Times looks in all of this compared to the competition:

• It took “The National Enquirer” to break the original story. There it sat for months, with little attention or followup.

• It took “The National Enquirer” to do the legwork to catch Edwards in the Beverly Hilton visiting his mistress and lovechild at 3:00 AM.
• It took Fox News to track down the security guard and confirm that it was Edwards who he escorted out of the hotel that night.
• The LA Times not only didn’t cover a story that happened in their backyard, they silenced their own blogging staff from even mentioning the story.
• Slate blogger Mickey Kaus has been relentless in covering the story.

What a worthless newspaper.

* This is possibly the most shameful part of the LA Times coverup up the John Edwards episode. Fox News is a pathetic excuse for a news-gathering organization. Their TV show is talk radio with moving pictures and their Web site isn’t much more than a reprint of the AP wire. That they scooped the LA Times on confirming the John Edwards story is a measure of just awful the LAT’s coverage was.

AP Announces Iraq War Won, Runs it on Saturday

Monday, July 28th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

It’s such a minor story, you know. Ace of Spades: “Surprise: AP’s Analysis That We’re Winning the War Embargoed By All But 206 Outlets, Including NYT and LAT. If a Saturday publish date doesn’t reduce exposure enough, try just not running it at all.”

NYTimes Admits Flawed Reporting on Wright/Obama

Monday, May 5th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

When Barack Obama made his gaffe on Pennslvania’s bitter voters the NY Times reported on the controversy, but demoted coverage of what was actually said. Now the Times’ public editor has issued a mea culpa:

While The Times was aggressive with its coverage on the Web, it was slow to fully engage the Wright story in print and angered some readers by putting opinion about it on the front page — a review by the television critic of his appearances on PBS, at an N.A.A.C.P. convention and at the National Press Club — before ever reporting in any depth what he actually said, how it squared with reality and what it might mean as Democrats ponder Obama as their potential nominee.

Carol Hebb of Narberth, Pa., spoke for many when she wrote that she found the newspaper’s initial coverage “very strange.” If editors did not think Wright’s remarks were newsworthy enough to be on the front page, she asked, why did they put the review by Alessandra Stanley there? “I was very surprised that her piece was not accompanied by a ‘factual’ article reporting the content of Mr. Wright’s comments more completely and perhaps adding some meaningful context.”

And for the record, Obama didn’t just say that rural voters were bitter, or that they clung to guns and religion, which is the sanitized version being peddled today. He also said that rural voters clung to racism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Here’s the complete Obama quote:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Sarcastro on the Miley Cyrus Photos

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

I’m with Sarcastro on the Vanity Fair controversy:

First problem I have with this is, she isn’t topless. Not that I really want to see Hannah’s little Montanas, but if there is faux-outrage over supposedly topless photos, shouldn’t she be a little more, you know, topless? Her back is exposed. Her front is covered with a sheet. No boob, no foul.

What is the responsibility of the media in all of this? It is similar to a self-aggrandizing interview Paul McCartney did back in the 60’s where he admitted quite openly to doing all sorts of drugs, much to the chagrin of the rest of the band who were far ahead in the drug taking. The interviewer asked about his responsibility to the Beatles’ young fans. McCartney rightly countered that it was up to the press to publicize it or not. If they were so worried about “the kids” maybe they shouldn’t air the interview.

I don’t see any difference here. If the high moral pillars of decency that make up the news departments across the country were interested in the impact that pictures (from a magazine that 90 out of 100 Disney Channel viewers have never heard of) would have on young, impressionable girls, then why did they show them to the point of parody on every news program in the last 48 hours?

Should Handgun Carry Permits Be Made Public?

Monday, April 7th, 2008 | Guns, Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 3 Comments |

The Memphis Commercial Appeal’s Blake Fontenay:

But as a journalist, I can see the value of having those records available to the public. If someone is involved in a school shooting or other heinous crime, wouldn’t you want to know if that person had a valid gun permit, when and where that permit was issued, etc., etc.? I know I would.

Fontenay’s argument seems to be that public interest automatically trumps privacy concerns, To use Fontenay’s example, if someone is involved in a school shooting wouldn’t you want to know if the person was under psychiatric care and what medicine they were taking? Maybe you would, but it doesn’t therefore follow that newspapers should publish everyone’s medical records on the front page.

Taking that a step further, if you were a crazy ex-husband who wanted to kill your ex-wife in defiance of an order of protection, wouldn’t you want to know if she has a permit to carry? More importantly, wouldn’t you want to know where she had moved to in order to get away from you?

Newspapers have printed that information in their witch hunts on permit holders. When the Roanoke Times published a list of concealed carry permit holders in Virginia, their rationale was that the information should be available just as registries of sex offenders are available. There are at least two flaws in that logic. The first is that where sex offender registries exist they are mandated by law, not by the whims of newspaper publishers.

The second teensie-weensie distinction is that convicted sex offenders are criminals and permit holders are not. Far from it. Statistics show that the likelihood of a Tennessee permit holders to commit crime is lower than for the general public, or even the police. To get a permit in Tennessee I had to submit to a background check that looked for restraining orders, indictments, and criminal convictions (even a DUI would have made me ineligible). I also had to register my fingerprints with the state. Yet newspapers continue their bigotry against citizens legally carrying guns, even to the point of publishing their names in the newspaper with more than a hint of suspicion.

On a different topic, Fontenay is commenting on news that the Tennessee GOP made a public records request for a list of handgun carry permit holders in the state. The TN-GOP claims they want the information to add to their mailing lists. Some people suspect they want to see if any anti-gun Democrats have carry permits so they can make political hay. Either way, it’s a boneheaded move by the TN-GOP, who had previously backed a bill protecting the privacy of handgun carry permit holders.

Hat tip to Michael Silence.

Mickey Kaus Catches a Faulty Media Story on Farming

Saturday, April 5th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

Kaus

MSM Rot Watch: Another tomato farmer gives up due to the failure to legalize illegal immigrants! … Oh wait, it’s the same guy, Keith Eckel of Clark’s Summit, PA., who got publicity for the same reason last week. … Is Eckel the only one the MSM could find? He’s the Greg Packer of farmers! … He’s so famous he’s already been contacted by Obama’s people. … P.S.: The NYT, unlike the Philadelphia Inquirer (which had last week’s Eckel story) somehow doesn’t have room to mention that Eckel is giving up tomatoes but planting corn. Instead reporter Paul Vitello deceptively says that Eckel has been put “out of business.” … And of course neither story mentions that corn prices are at record highs due to “surging demand for the grain used to feed livestock and make alternative fuels including ethanol.” …

So let’s see: Corn prices soar. Farmer decides to plant corn. It’s the yahoos fault!

See also:
- Greg Packer - World’s Most Famous “Man on the Street”

Go Read Patterico for the Dope on the LA Times/Diddy/Tupac Story

Thursday, March 27th, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 2 Comments |

The LA Times now admits it was conned with fake documents on a story it ran linking P. Diddy to an attack on Tupac Shukar. That’s only part of the story. Patterico has the rest.

Chuck Philips, the author of the LA Times piece in question, has had a long and questionable relationship to the story of the Tupac killing and a conflict of interest in his reporting that would cause him to point blame away from Suge Knight:

Chuck Philips, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his music business reporting in 1999, has covered Death Row Records since the early ‘90’s. He has long been known for obtaining scoops and exclusive interviews for The Times due to his unmatched access to Suge Knight. Some critics have characterized him as Suge’s apologist and as a reporter corrupted by access. Others speculate there may be more to it than that. One key witness at the Biggie civil trial, Death Row insider Kevin Hackie, who identified David Mack as attending Death Row functions, also stated in a pre-trial deposition that “Chuck Philips was frequently at Death Row functions and received payments from Death Row Records.” Hackie backed off of this statement at trial, but he also tried to back away from everything he had told investigators, stating, convincingly, that “I’m in fear for my life.” Asked what he feared, Hackie stated: “Retribution by the Bloods, the Los Angeles Police Department and associates of Death Row Records.”

A Possible Effect of Crime Reporting on Crime

Monday, January 21st, 2008 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 4 Comments |

Pajamas Media - Gang Violence in Black and White

The Los Angeles Times and the local television stations seem to employ a peculiar calculus when deciding to cover a crime story, and in the event they do, how much coverage to give it. Among the factors weighed in this calculus are the number and age of the victims, their perceived culpability (i.e. the sympathy factor), and the crime’s proximity to a white neighborhood.

One 19-year-old gang member shooting and killing another one gets no coverage at all if it happens in South-Central, but plenty if it happens outside a Hollywood nightclub. An innocent child or elderly person unintentionally shot and killed in a drive-by might get a few column inches in the paper and a mention on the television news, as would a shooting that results in, say, three or more deaths, even if the crime occurs in the heart of South-Central and all the victims are themselves gang members. But if an innocent victim is murdered in a white neighborhood, particularly a wealthy one, it’s Stop the presses! at the papers and We’re going there live for breaking news! in the television newsrooms.

[...]

Today, with violence in Los Angeles on the decline, there is a new variable in the calculus of determining a given crime’s newsworthiness: the inter-racial factor. When a black gang member kills another black gang member it will most likely be ignored in the media, just as when both the murderer and the murdered are Latinos. But let a Latino gang member kill a black one, or vice versa, now that’s a story.

[...]

The lesson for L.A.’s gang members: keep the killing within your own neighborhood and your own race, and you’ll keep it out of the news.

Hat tip to Patterico.

Stupid Controversy Over Huckabee Christmas Ad

Wednesday, December 19th, 2007 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 4 Comments |

There’s a ginned-up controversy over the Mike Huckabee Christmas ad (above). The controversy has to do with whether the bookshelf in the background forms a crucifix and whether that’s a crypto-Christian symbol.

This is the most retarded media controversy in months. In the video, Huckabee says “what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and our friends.” There’s also a Christmas tree in the background, and the music playing is “Silent Night.” Huckabee signs off with “On behalf of all of us, God bless and Merry Christmas.”

Why are some people upset that there’s supposedly a subliminal religious symbol in a Mike Huckabee video that’s overtly about religion and a religious holiday? I’m no Huckabee fan and I’m a big stinkin’ heathen to boot, but as controversies go this one’s a pointless media creation (and by media I include the Drudge Report, which has flogged this for the past week).

CNN’s “Undecided Voters” in Republican Debate Were Also Ringers

Thursday, November 29th, 2007 | Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | No Comments |

At the Democratic debate CNN’s “ordinary people” and “undecided voters” were partisans and activists with Democratic sympathies. CNN repeated that performance with more Democratic plants:

Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants: Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers.

And Adam Yoshida found another:

So, the fellow who just asked the Republican candidates about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, retired Brigader General Keith Kerr, is a member of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Presidency.

Two more questioners busted at Power Line:

Jim Vicevich alerts us to a few more Democratic plants at the CNN YouTube Republican candidates forum last night. Adam Florzak asked a question on Social Security. Jim comments: “Strange question, because he asked about paying back the social security trust fund? That’s a Republican question.” It turns out that Florzak quit his job with Caterpillar to work with Dick Durbin on social security reform. Then there was Mark Strauss, who pleaded with Ron Paul to run as an independent. It turns out he’s a Richardson supporter (more here). CNN must have know who Strauss is because he participated in the CNN/Youtube Democratic presidential debate this past July. It’s all over now, baby blue.

The irony is that the Democratic candidates didn’t want to debate on Fox News because they thought Fox would use dirty tricks.

See also:
- CNN’s Six “Undecided Voters” Were Ringers
- John Ridley - NPR’s “Undecided Voter”

Harvard Study Finds Liberal Media Bias

Thursday, November 8th, 2007 | Media Behaving Badly, Political Survival Kit | Permalink | No Comments |

Investor’s Business Daily - Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased:

Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which “produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans.”

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.