Category Archives: Journalism

‘Idiot Pundits and Pollsters Strike Again’

Elections 2008, Journalism, Media

At least this empty tracksuit, Joel Achenbach, admits he and his cohort are “imbeciles” (why, then, are they still employed by prestigious publications and remunerated for their idiocy?):
“I guess it was premature to write those forward-looking analyses of President Obama’s re-election strategy in 2012.
I don’t want to suggest that the pundits look stupid this morning. More like complete freakin’ imbeciles. Count me among those who thought Obama was a runaway train, that he’d blow Clinton out of the water. (It’s early and I didn’t get enough sleep, so we just went ahead and mixed the metaphor.)
You had to see the crowds! Feel the energy! Okay, so in retrospect a lot of those people were probably college kids on break from Massachusetts or Maryland. Still, many of us sensed that we were witnessing history, a transition to a new era. Turning the page.
“You have to BELIEVE,” I told my jaded friend Von Drehle.
“In WHAT?” he said.
“In HOPE,” I said. I was just trying to get in the spirit of things, and be a true news medium.
In retrospect, I regret posting that item about Obama turning water to wine.
A little after midnight, in Nashua at the gym where Obama had spoken to his stunned supporters, a nationally known pundit said to me: “I spent half an hour today on television talking about the Clintons IN THE PAST TENSE.”
What happened?
Maybe it really was the “Ed Muskie in reverse” effect. That’s the Sid Blumenthal phrase. Clinton cleaned up among women, and women made up 57 percent (so I am told) of Democratic primary voters. Perhaps women rallied to the cause after the Emotional Moment. You heard what the woman from Bow told me yesterday: She suddenly switched from Edwards to Clinton after seeing the news clip of Clinton tearing up in Portsmouth. And several other voters told me they absolutely loved the EM.
Last night at the Obama rally, Sue Tice, a librarian at the high school who seemed floored by the results, said of the turnaround, “I really wonder if it was yesterday when Hillary became a person.”
And then there was the image of the boys ganging up on Clinton in the debate — and that snarky comment by Obama, calling Hillary “likeable enough,” which surely he meant to come out in a more jocular fashion. Never mind his intent: “Jokes don’t work,” said Dave Barry this weekend, and he knows a thing or two about that.
We’ve seen over the years that the New Hampshire Primary can turn on a gesture, a phrase, a single searing moment. Politics isn’t left-brained, it’s more reptilian than that.
We had buried Clinton by Monday night and had moved on to wondering what she’d do with the tattered remnants of her career. But guess what: the voters decide these things. It’s too soon to know precisely how this race stands and where it’s going and what’s going to happen, but from where I’m sitting — in the Manchester airport, ready to get the hell home — she’s the front-runner again.
And remember: Front-runners usually win.”

[Snip]

As I keep pointing out, there is nothing these people can predict accurately or analyze correctly (bar Pat Buchanan, who called the results in Iowa and New Hampshire). The print media’s timeless tenure is without justification.

Updated: The New Republic’s Vilification of Paul

Elections 2008, Federalism, Journalism, Media, Ron Paul

The less said about the New Republic’s vile write-up about Ron Paul the better.
On Pajama Media is where I first saw the exuberantly celebrated link to TNR’s hit piece. Pajama Media is a conglomeration of some of the lowliest neocons in the production of cyberspace ejaculate. Ditto “The New Republic”— warmongers all. They’ve never been right in any of their policy forecasts, and are mad as hell that Paul’s predictions usually pan out.
The stuff spewed by the author, who is fast becoming known as “Pimples” for obvious reasons, masquerades as investigative journalism, when it is no more than an ad hominem attack. The various contentions—mostly that Paul is alleged to have made offensive statements about crime and demographics—are not relevant to the campaign issues; these attacks do not address the issues Paul speaks to, but are, rather, personal attacks without proof.
Since it’s hard to hate the impish, good-natured Paul, I suspect that in Paul, his opponents have found man who has led an exemplary life—he has served his country and community, stayed married to his childhood sweetheart for 50 odd years, and is as devout a Christian as he is a constitutionalist. His actions alone make him the man his detractors can never aspire to be.
Disclaimer: “Pimples” appears to believe that advocating secession, which is no more than a peaceful political divorce, is racist and hateful. So in the interest of full disclosure, here is a piece I wrote. It appeared in Canada’s National Newspaper, the left-leaning Globe And Mail. It celebrates Canadian secessionism. But then the title is self-explanatory: “Raise a Toast to Western Separatism and Canada’s Good Health.”
Paul has issued a statement addressing The New Republic smears. Here it is.

Update: I imagined Andrew Sullivan, having endorsed Rep. Paul, would act like a man, for once, and stand up for Dr. Paul. But no: Sullivan became hysterical over the allegations against Paul. A sulking Sullivan has announced he no longer feels the same about the candidate he once praised so highly. Shame.

ABC A-OKAY

Elections 2008, Journalism, Media

My first observation with respect to the Republican Debate in New Hampshire concerns the anchors. Charles Gibson of ABC especially, but also Scott Spradling, the WMUR-TV news anchor, looked awfully good when compared to the cable clowns.

I was reminded how a veteran newsman (Gibson) ought to conduct himself, as opposed to a seasoned entertainer (Anderson Cooper).

The first (Gibson), is formal and neutral. For all we know, he’s probably a flaming liberal but we are none the wiser because of an intelligent, detached delivery and demeanor. The last (Cooper), has substituted journalism with advocacy, so that poignant inquires about issues (Gibson) are replaced with whiny demands whiny demands (Cooper) such as, “What are you going to do about making taxpayers pay for my health care?” Or, “When will you join Gore in admitting there’s a global-warming crisis?”

Fox Noise anchors are as “intelligent” CNN’s noise-makers, except they have a different impetus, if as transparent.

Updated: The Accursed CNN/YouTube Debates: What to Expect

Elections 2008, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Republicans

You surely recall the kind of questions asked by the liberal media’s brain trust, Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper, during the last Democratic debate. Refresh your memory with “Jackass Cooper & The 1-Trick Donkeys.”

Darling Anderson is an intellectual pigmy. Affirmative appointments—the dumbing down and feminization of the media—has meant that we are not only subjected, day-in-and-day-out, to soft news stories about pets and pestilence (flu, food poisoning, childcare, the nation’s ballooning bigotry and weight); but also that competent, critical, hard-nosed, older reporters (Jack Cafferty, for example) are stashed behind the scenes.

You can detect the difference when one of the androgynous front-people is replaced for a session—things look up somewhat when poor Miles O’Brien, for example, is allowed occasionally into the studio to interview a challenging subject. Suddenly real questions are asked, then, rather than, “How hopeful are you, Mr. ambassador, about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?” To be sealed with a, “Thanks for your insights.” I’m sure O’Brien’s a pinko, but he has a brain, unlike girls such as Don Lemon, Cooper, and Kyra Phillips.

In any event, with the YouTube questions for the St. Petersburg, Florida debate to be selected by the CNN “V” Brigade (“V” is not for victory), rest assured that the Republican candidates will be honing their Democratic bona fides. I predict whiny demands such as, “What are you going to do about making taxpayers pay for my health care?” Or, “When will you join Gore in admitting there’s a global-warming crisis?” Economic nonsense about energy independence and renewability will also abound.

Update: The debate was excellent. Cooper did a 180 degree about-face from the previous YouTube debate he hosted, and I described in “Jackass Cooper & The 1-Trick Donkeys.” Compared to the cretins Cooper picked to pose questions to the Democrats, the questions selected this time were conservative and clever. The demographic was different, sure, but so were Cooper and his cohorts at CNN. Perhaps they got the message that quirky would not cut it. Hey, perhaps he read “Jackass Cooper & The 1-Trick Donkeys

Update # II (Nov. 29): Further impressions about the debates: Dr. Paul, of course, was given the least amount of time. Also, I wish he had remembered to count the IRS among the departments he’d abolish, before the phony saccharine Huckabee muscled in.
Huckabee’s Fair-Tax scheme will not see the demise of the IRS—it may change its name, but not its function. The Fair Tax—a contradiction in terms—will not necessarily see a reduction in taxation. Bruce Bartlett has demolished that myth in “Fair Tax, Flawed Tax.” If anything, and as I wrote in the “Flat Tax Limits State Theft”:
“In a free enterprise system, people do not pay for goods and services in proportion to their income (or else Bill Gates would be paying a million dollars or so for a loaf of bread). Rather, they all pay the same amount. The fairest method of taxation then would be a poll or head tax, where we are all taxed equally. That the poor would not afford much would limit government spending like nothing else.”
Choke those chickens! Huckabee is such a spender; out of one side of his mouth he disavows the national; out of the other, he vows to fund the space program, which can be done best privately.
On a more intuitive level: There were two honest-to-goodness, plainspoken non-politicos on stage last night: Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. Very shortly after George Bush was elected, I told you he was not a good man. I was vindicated. You can trust me to make sound character judgments. You’re used to the analytical me; today you got gut instinct. (In rational individuals there is no bifurcation.)
Next: Did you notice how sour and superior John McCain behaved? It was as though he came down from the heavens to grace the rest with his presence. Give me a break! It goes without saying that he was one of two pinko candidates who eschewed carrying a gun. The other was gunless, gun regulator, Benito Giuliani. BOOOOO! Mitt Romney supports farm subsidies, which hurt third-world farmers immensely. Doing away with those would be infinitely more productive than sending more money down the African foreign aid rathole.