International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Must. Push. Narrative…

I just found this article on my phone “Why US President Donald Trump’s response to Christchurch shooting is dangerous“.

Well, having read it I’m none to clear about Trump. But the article… now that’s dangerous.

Most Americans were shocked to learn about the massacre of 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch on Friday. They shouldn’t be. The violent strain of white nationalism that appears to have inspired the alleged gunman has grown increasingly pervasive and strident in the United States during the past several years.

Yea.. um… funny thing. The shooting wasn’t in the United States.

At its core, white nationalism is about fear…

So are a lot of things. For example, articles trying to make white nationalism seem more popular than it is.

While most Americans are quick to write off white nationalist conspiracy theories and violence as something on the fringes of society or perpetuated by an alienated few or by those in need of mental health treatment,  the reality is that…

…the media has used them to great effect.

[skip rambling yarn about US history]

Today, we live in a generally more tolerant and empathetic time. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern bluntly declared the Muslim victims of Friday’s mass shooting “are us”, in sharp contrast to…

…her rhetoric on the campaign trail where she blamed migrants for house prices, and promised to make life harder for them. Lol, no. You can’t bring that up now!

But we also live in a time of rising violent white supremacy. In recent years in the United States, American white nationalists have been aggressively on guard against what they envision to be existential threats to white power. This revival of violent white supremacy, according to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, has been framed as a response to demographic changes.

And there you go – their source is the SPLC. Well, it’s not like they’ve blown their credibility to shreds or anything!

[ok, this is supposed to be about Trump… let’s skip to that part.]

After Friday’s attack, President Donald Trump dismissed white nationalism as simply a case of “a small group of people” with “very, very serious problems”.

Eh, that can’t be it? Trump dismissed them – pretty much the same way that Obama or any other president might have. So…. that’s why he’s dangerous? He mocks them as a small group (which they are) and they have serious problems (which they do)?

That’s hardly a “dangerous” response. It’s actually really reasonable.

Yet there can be no doubt that white nationalism is on the rise in the West. As the case of the United States during World War I indicates, we minimise such violent ideologies at our own peril.

Yea, when your only real source for the claim that it’s “on the rise in the west” is the SPLC, you’re going to have a hard time convincing people.

This is news, in 2019. And they wonder why they get dismissed as “fake”.

Journalists don’t care

There’s a meme right now where people are telling journalist (especially those just made redundant) to “learn to code”.

This is in response to journalists telling other laid off professions to do so.

But heaven forbid that they get a taste of their own medicine.

But it gets worse.

So now he’s claiming that his feelings weren’t hurt. But he reported it anyway.

Never mind that there might be a lot of people pissed off at the increasing bad behaviour. If people talk to each out about how bad journalism is, that’s a coordinated campaign and must be stopped by the authorities!

In other words, he’s yet another example of how journalism is going to fight to the death against the changes needed to stop it dying.

Covington – the truth in 15 minutes

This video is making the rounds. Hat tip to Sonoran Conservative.

It’s a really through (and devastating) examination of what happened – i.e. what the media should have done, but chose not to.

Twitter protects journalists from karma

I’m loath to quote twichy. But they’re right on this one.

It seems that while plenty of journalists loved telling coal miners to “learn to code” when they were laid off, don’t dare tell the same journalists that they ought to if (when) they suffer the same fate.

And Twitter is threatening to suspend people who do.

Remember, this is the same twitter who refused to step in and stop a torrent of vile abuse towards children.

But more on that in my next post.

More on Covington

We now know more than enough to know that Nathan Philips is not trustworthy.

This TimCast video actually isn’t about Covintongate. It was posted a few days earlier. He talks about how formerly free-speech organisations on the left are now openly advocating censorship.

But boy is the headline on point.

Finally, this is an excellent piece from the National Review, and it was quoted extensively in Instapundit today.

The Covington fiasco has proved to be a clarifying moment. And here is what has been made clear: Much of the American media is no longer engaged in journalism. It is engaged in opposition research and in what is sometimes known among political operatives as “black p.r.”—the sinister twin of ordinary public relations. As Joy Behar, as profoundly dim and tedious a person as American public life has to offer, forthrightly confessed: The hysteria and outright dishonesty surrounding the Covington students had nothing to do with them. It has to do with narrowly partisan, selfish, deeply stupid, entirely unpatriotic, childish, foot-stamping, fingers-in-the-ears, weeping, cooties-loathing, teary-eyed, tremulous, quavering, pansified, gormless, deceitful, dishonorable, and cynical politics of the lowest kind — the politics of Us and Them.

When Rush Limbaugh said he hoped Obama failed, the left when nuts. Now, they try to destroy anyone who isn’t saying the exact same thing.

And the fact that a couple of children in MAGA hats engaged in boorish behavior — which isn’t even a fact, as it turns out, but a lie constructed and wholesaled with malice aforethought — wouldn’t have told us one damn thing about Donald J. Trump, his administration, or his political supporters at large. The fact that we had a momentary national moral crisis over the (as is turns out, fictitious) actions of a couple of nobody teenagers is all the evidence anybody needs of the fundamentally hysterical and unserious times in which we live. In a sane world, nobody cares about whether a 16-year-old boy somewhere . . . smirked.

The fact that anyone ever did is crazy. The fact that I am still encountering people who think this outrage is even slightly justified is flat-out insane. It’s been a week, we know the initial outrage was based on a lie. But somehow it’s a lie people want to believe is true, even if it’s taking the side of crazy homophobic nutcase adults and against kids.

Everybody who has pretended like that smirk tells us something serious about the state of the world is a liar and a fraud. I don’t mean the people who were legitimately taken in by the deceit — especially those who have had the honor and self-respect to admit their errors and correct them — but those who willfully persist in the lie. […] I’m talking about you, editors of the New York Times. You sorry specimens are poor excuses for journalists, which, of course, we already knew. What’s more relevant here is that you are bad citizens. Trafficking in lies and distortions because you think the guy in the White House is kind of gross is unworthy of adults with responsible positions in a free society that depends on honest and functional institutions.

I like his style here. He’s abusing people, because they’re bad people. Guilty adults, who did something wrong. Something they should have known was wrong. Something that undermines the very freedom the west depends on, because if your information is tainted, how can your vote be properly informed? Heck, they’ll admit lecture on and on that fake news does this, but when they’re caught, where’s the consequences? There should be mass firings over this gross breach of ethics, where are they?

As some of you may recall, I wrote a little book called The Case against Trump. I didn’t think much of him in 2016. I don’t think much of him now. But we aren’t three tweets away from the Holocaust. Nobody seriously believes that we are, unless they are insane. Sane people who insist that the United States in 2019 is something like Germany in the 1930s are liars. They don’t really believe it. They have an investment in hysteria.

This is something that’s easy to forget. These people who talk about the end of democracy coming from Trump don’t in any way act like they’re going to be arrested for opposing him. They know, but they prefer to hyperventilate about Nazis. And they still do it months later, when Trump’s record is well established as someone who hasn’t done any of the things they were scared of.

Of course he’s done a bunch of things they disagree with. Because when Obama did those things, that as different, right?

We all have our jobs to do in a republic. Newspaper reporters are supposed to cover what’s going on in the world. I don’t know what you call people who cover what’s going on on Twitter. I have a few ideas, but I don’t think I can print them here.

Back in the day, these stupid rumours would have run into a solid firewall when they arrived at the newsroom door.

Now, they’re quickly grabbed and amplified. And we all lose as a result.

My own suspicion is that this moment of mass hysteria, like other hysterias before it, eventually must collapse under the weight of its own tediousness. But I cannot say with any confidence that I expect that to happen soon. And it will not happen at all until Americans start deciding to take on the difficult responsibilities of citizenship, which starts with acting like a goddamned grownup. Nicholas Sandmann is a 16-year-old kid — but the people who made this empty episode into a national crisis are not. They are grown adults, and answerable for their actions.

I’d love to see a fundraiser for legal action on this one. I think I’d donate a couple of hundred bucks, and encourage everyone I know to do the same. I sincerely hope that if they do, it raises hundreds of millions. Because if the media wont act ethically, they need to face the consequences.

And anyone who thinks this was ethical needs their head seen to.

Media – WE are the victims here


Just in case all that’s happened has passed you by, and you still didn’t think that the media does it’s job, Kirsten Powers is here to tell you that they are real victims of all this.


Update: you can always tell when the media doesn’t like the story.

Update 2: play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Update 3:

Media to receive lesson 2?

I’ve said to a lot of people, that the media really should have learned something from Trump’s election. Here’s a guy they told us was the devil incarnate, and he still was elected by a landslide in the electoral college. (Yes, I know about the popular vote,  I also know what that means – bupkis.)

See, over the years the bias of the media has become more and more apparent. You had the media refusing to report on Bill Clinton’s ill-doings until they were forced to. Even today, his impeachment is rarely mentioned, and it’s usually done so in terms of the Republicans being “out-to-get” him. He’s losing steam now, but only because in the #MeToo error (not a typo), people are realising that you just can’t back an accused rapist, (particularly when the victim went to the police so quickly after the crime). No, the media loved Bill Clinton.

Then you had them behind GWB after 9/11 until the left turned on him then he was literally Hitler. So much so that by the time of the 2004 election, most people could see that the media was clearly in the tank for Kerry, and those that thought otherwise probably did so because they thought that not calling Bush Hitler life on air was “helping him”.


Then we have the Obama years, when the media just fawned over Obama, even as everything fell apart. The one big example that comes to mind is the Tea Party. The media ignored massive conservcative protests until it became embarassing. They then decided that they would just call the protests racist, and even pretended they were some sort of conspiracy of nutcases and the ultra-rich Koch brothers:

Swinging left, there has been a rhetorical flight of several journo intellectuals into conspiracy, with Jane Mayer in the New Yorkerascribing the Tea Party movement’s motives and machinations to the moneyed interests of the Koch brothers, while Matt Taibbi goes even further in the October 15 issue of Rolling Stone, and claims that the Tea Party movement is being stoked by Goldman Sachs, BP, and an “assortment of nativist freaks, village idiots and Internet Hitlers,” who are all infected by the GOP with “incoherent resentment.”

On these accounts, Tea Partyism is, at best, an expression of bad faith in genuine democracy; it cannot be honestly held because it is either bought or the product of dementia.

The results? Predictable.

If journalists follow a journalistic theory of democracy, shouldn’t they be at least mildly jazzed by the Tea Party as political engagement and civic vitality of the Town Hall interrogations of politicians over health care reform?

But one doesn’t really get the feeling that they are – or that they get why people might be jazzed holding what they see as truth up to power. And this is something not entirely explicable by some of the fringe views held by Tea Partiers. Has it been that, for far too long, journalists have confused their democratic role with a Democratic role; the democratization of knowledge with the Democratization of knowledge?

As a new Gallup Poll shows, the answer for a large segment of the American public is ‘hell, yes’: 57 percent say they “have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly,” while 48 percent say the media are “too liberal.”

Emphasis mine.

The fact is, I can remember a single month – if that – when Obama was really suffering in the media. And that was because one of the 3 things that was going on was the fact that he’d had law enforcement go after a journalist.

Just in case you still don’t get the point, here’s some satire from The Onion, which is openly liberal mind you.

WASHINGTON—More than a week after President Barack Obama’s cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime.

“I know there’s a story in there somewhere,” said Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama’s home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. “Right now though, it’s probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in. After all, the only thing we know for sure is that our president senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans without emotion or hesitation.”

Added Meacham, “It’s not so cut and dried.”

This was most stark during election coverage. This is from 2008.

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather — not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake — but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side — or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

I’d forgotten about Sarah Palin. Well, she hasn’t done herself any favours in the meantime, but back then she was the country’s most popular governer. In spite of her top level experience, and Obama’s lack thereof, she was derided as not ready for… the vice presidency. Because McCain was about to die, don’t  you know?

Needless to say, people noticed this stuff. And for all that happened to elect Trump, his grasping the anger about the media’s unashamed one-sided playing the field was one of his most masterful strokes.

But to hear the media and the left (but I repeat myself) talk about it, you’d think Trump invented the idea of being angry at the media.

Let me quote the above source again. Remember, this is 2008.

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer,” because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.

Remember, this is the guy who though the Sarah Palin pile-on was justified. And he’s saying that the press are playing very, very dangerous game with the country. In 2008. 

Did the press learn from this? No.

And that’s why we got Trump.

To me, Trump was a big lesson for the media. Why?

Yet again, Democrats breathlessly declare the Republican candidate a Nazi — and wonder why no one is listening.

The Republican nominee for president is a racist, sexist threat to American democracy — and this time, we really mean it.

In a nutshell, this is the Democratic argument against Donald Trump. In a wild, topsy-turvy political year, it is the one exceedingly familiar piece of the political landscape — because it is a version of the argument the Left makes against every Republican nominee.

That this line of attack is so shopworn, just when Democrats think we need it most, has led to self-reflection and regret from one of the harshest commentators on the left. The HBO host Bill Maher said the other day that “liberals made a big mistake” when they attacked George W. Bush “like he was the end of the world,” and did the same thing to Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Maher himself was a prime offender, with no hesitation about resorting to Nazi analogies (he compared Romney’s aides to Adolf Hitler’s dead-end loyalists, and Laura Bush to Hitler’s dog).

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been touring the country saying that Trump isn’t like past Republican nominees, even though they were attacked in exactly the same terms.

That’s right. The media found someone they were genuinely(ish) worried about… and discovered that they’d already described all the previous republican candidates that way.

I personally believe that the media have literally trained the right to see the “He’s a Nazi!!!” cries as the mark of a good republican candidate. 

And by that measure, Trump was the best candidate the GOP had ever put up. So he was elected.

The Trump Lesson

At this point the media should have realised their mistake. Some did. For about 5 seconds. But I don’t need to remind you what we’ve seen since – it’s been turned up to 11. It’s so bad that in effect, the media have openly colluded with Russia in undermining the USA.

Yes, you read that right. The media have colluded with the Russian agenda of de-stabilising the United States. But that’s not really the point I’m going for here.

The point is what should have happened.

What should have happened is that the press stopped the hyperbole. Stop reporting bias, and aggressively counter it. Stop printing opinion as fact. Stop putting up panels of people who are all on one side with maybe one guy on the other. (And of for the love of mike, call the police immediately if some big burly guy starts threatening the Jewish guy live on air. Nothing says “untrustworthy media” like seeing someone committing a crime openly on live TV and no one bats an eyelid.)

In short, focus on integrity. The facts and nothing but the facts. Do it calmly. Don’t pretend that the right are all extremists, and don’t pretend that “anti-“fascist thugs roaming the street beating people up are not terrorists.

Oh, who am I kidding. We all know this didn’t happen. We’ve seen the Russian investigation hysteria, and the hysteria over Brett Kavanaugh.

Remember that? The time when the Democrats shows everyone they’d say anything, do anything, slander a guy who had a well-documented history of zero scandals, to stop him being appointed to the Supreme Court. And the media enthusiastically played along, with as little as 8% of coverage being dedicated to Kavanaugh’s refutation of the suspect allegations.

And they are still at it.

Unfortunately, when it came to the unproven allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, they could only feel pain for Kavanaugh’s “very credible” accusers. No one was invited on CNN to express the view that Kavanaugh’s accusers weren’t convincing in their tales of teenage debauchery, and that Kavanaugh was smeared with false charges. The “Facts First” network wasn’t really nailing down the facts on this one.

And so we arrive at today.

At the kid who smiled when attacked. The kids who were abused, and did their school chant to drown it out. The kids who were just kids, and (rightly) exited a tense situation knowing they’d not done the wrong thing, knowing they had not been taunted into making a mistake… and then discovered that didn’t matter. In spite of all their self-control, in spite of all the abuse they put up with, in spite of the horrible things said to them, they were cast as evil by a social media mob, which set about destroying them. and the media was an active, eager participant.

All because that kid was white, and wearing the president’s slogan.


Oh, and that graphic is from this morning. Literally days after we know what really happened. I initially said the truth stopped the media, but the truth is, they really still have not stopped.

This has been one of the worst cases of media malpractice in living memory. And the victims are kids!

Well, those kids are fighting back.

Robert Barnes, the lawyer representing the Covington Catholic High School kids who were smeared by the media, is warning reporters, celebrities, and others with large media platforms that they have until Friday to correct the record, or they will be sued.

Because of their sloppy reporting of what transpired in Washington, D.C., when two groups of protesters confronted a group of Catholic high school students who were waiting to catch a bus last Friday, the teens and their families have become the subjects of ongoing threats and harassment from a hateful online outrage mob.

On Fox and Friends Wednesday morning, Barnes, who is representing the families at no cost, explained that because the kids are private citizens and minors, anything someone says about them that is false can be libel, according to the law. Rather than proving malice, “all you have to prove is negligence,” he said.

So a lot of these journalists have been saying false statements about these kids, false statements about the kids that were at the Lincoln Memorial, false statements about kids that were in various photographs related to the school, slurring and libeling the entire school and all the alumni for the school, and all you have to prove is they were negligent in doing so and by this standpoint, by this point in time, it is clear that anyone who continues to lie and libel about these kids has done so illegally and can be sued for it.

Reading that report, it’s clear that this is war. The dogs are let loose. They are not going to let the magnitude of the wrong stop them, and boy does this sound aggressive.

Because what happened was wrong. It was wrong on so many levels. It’s the perfect case for a serious response, and a serious response has been a long time coming.

It’s not the first time this has been tried. Sarah Palin went after the New York Times, who slandered her on their pages, but got pushed back because the NYT argued (And I swear I’m not making this up) that they didn’t read their own newspaper. And outside that, Palin is manifestly a public person. Bit hard to argue that with some random kid from a catholic school in Kentucky.

Well, I wish them all the best in the fight. The media desperately need a slap down, and this has a chance of delivering that. From what I’ve seen, a lot of people will be behind this. I don’t usually watch Ben Shapiro live, but I happened to see him during breakfast earlier this week. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him so angry. Ever.

I really recommend watching it, because there’s so much here that I have not even touched on – like the total lack of coverage of the March for Life.

Trump’s election was the first really big slap down of the media and their increasingly open partisanship.

This has an excellent chance of being lesson 2. They have my support, 100%

5 Things About the Hobby Lobby Ruling

I ran across this report earlier today.

I’ve seen some bad reporting over the years, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen an article that seems to be deliberately designed to make people more ignorant.

Let’s look at a few points:

1. If you work at certain types of for-profit companies, they no longer have to cover the cost of any contraception that they say violates their religious beliefs

The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) requires most health insurance plans to cover birth control without cost-sharing. Without healthcare coverage, the pill can cost about $25 a month and an IUD (intrauterine device) can cost up to $900 (though it’s inserted once and lasts up to 12 years).

So my first observation is that they all but admit that this is about saving a measly $25 per month at worst. And there’s the elephant in the room that this is covering something that anywhere else would not be an insurance item.

They also tacitly admit that there was only 4 of the 20 methods covered. So really, it’s hard to see this being a very serious sort of issue. They also start out by talking about the Pill, giving the impression that that is one of the methods removed – but it’s not.

2. All three female Justices dissented, arguing that this ruling limits women’s rights

All of the women on the court are liberals. The liberals voted for less religious liberty, and only one of them is a man. Apparently (since this article is aimed at women) it’s important that you know that all the women on the court were rooting for you. Or something.

Then there’s this quote.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Stephen Breyer (the only male justice who dissented). “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage,” Ginsberg wrote

Here’s the thing about that. It’s complete nonsense.

It is not even remotely true. It is literally impossible for one simple reason: this decision has given employers of any sort precisely no, zero, zilch rights to determine what pharmaceuticals and employee might buy. That’s not a right employers have ever had, sought, or wanted, even in their wildest dreams.

Yet, that claim not only appears in a media report, but a supreme court decision.

3. The ruling may depress use of IUDs at some privately held corporations that deem it a form of emergency contraception

This is where we really get into the weird zone. I mean, who cared about the IUD use rate at privately held corporations? Seriously, that’s a really weird thing to say.

Now, it would be more useful to say, “this will reduce the use of this really effective method”. And they do try to say that… sort of.

But note this:

The IUD can also be used as emergency contraception if it is inserted five days after intercourse, hence the Hobby Lobby’s objection to it and not birth control pills.

That’s about as good an example of what the article does all the way through: skirts the core issue that this ruling is about abortifacients. Seriously, the word never appears yet that was the entire ethical objection that the court case was about.

4. Women’s rights groups are angry because they see the ruling as a loss of autonomy for women

Feminists don’t like this? Gee, who knew.

See what I mean about making people more ignorant?

Oh, and did you notice that having someone else pay for your birth control somehow = more autonomy. Feminism, gotta love it. (Seriously, you have to, it’s in the rules of modern liberalism.)

In fact, this point is so idiotic, it required detailed fisking.

Some women’s rights advocates have taken the argument even further than Ginsburg did. Up until this point the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has been interpreted as a protection for individuals’ religious practices—not those of corporations. The Supreme Court just said that these protections also extend to for-profit companies,

Bzzzt. Wrong. It ruled that when you have a closely-held company, forcing a company to do something is forcing an individual (or a small group of individuals) to do something.

but didn’t protect a woman’s right to choose her method of birth control.

Bzzzt. Wrong. As pointed out above, this ruling says precisely nothing about that. It’s about who pays for it.

Thus, many critics argue, the Supreme Court decided that corporations are people, but women are not.

They may even honestly believe that. But I doubt it – I mean, they’re not that stupid, aren’t they?

Women’s rights groups say restricting insurance coverage for some types of contraception, or making coverage more difficult to obtain, undermines access to birth control in general and point to studies that have shown that offering greater access to contraception—rather than restricting it—leads to fewer unintended pregnancies and thus reduces the number of abortions by 75 percent annually.

That’s a true statement, they do say that. They also say that women are more autonomous when given $25/month worth of pills by their employer. Did I mention that? Yep… ok, just checking.

5. Under the ruling, some corporations could attempt to refuse coverage for other, non-contraceptive medications and procedures citing their religious beliefs

But even the people who wrote this admit almost immediately that it’s a bogus claim:

In the majority opinion written by Justice Alito, he specifies that the ruling applies only to the contraceptive mandate, and states that it should not be understood to include to other insurance mandates, like those for blood transfusions or vaccinations.

Fact is, if something else comes up, it’ll go through the courts again.

So there you have it. A report that never actually talks about the key issue, grossly insults women, tells incredibly silly lies, and then tells us about the most obvious thing ever written.

Modern journalism – gotta love it.

 (See also this post at Patterico)


If you opposed Bush on imaginary grounds, you were a patriot.

Watch as MSNBC tries to cover for Obama’s IRS scandal. The left have used Obama’s skin colour as a weapon before, but it’s usually not anything like this this naked.

Thing is, during the Bush years, there were a lot of fears floating around about how him seizing power and such. All but a few of these were completely baseless, held up only by vivid imaginations.

On the other hand, when you have a situation like the IRS scandal, where the government persecuted members of the public who happened to oppose the president, you get this sort of response.

News Organisations screw up sometimes

Just a quick reminder that every time you see something like this, there’s always things like this.

Newsrooms are staffed with people, and people make mistakes. Just because you can spot a mistake in a news service you don’t like, doesn’t mean they’re not a news service and doesn’t mean others don’t make the same sorts of errors.

Tag Cloud