The networks spin on gasoline prices

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post. )

For a while it seemed a day didn't pass without MSM news organizations reporting rising gasoline prices and what they said would be the consequences.

Consumers would be hurt and the economy slowed. The President's poll ratings were sure to drop further. Angry voters might even overturn Republican control of Congress in the '06 election.

But for a month now, gasoline prices have been dropping steadily and significantly. Here in North Carolina, regular in early October sold at $3.19 per gallon. Today it's $2.54 per gallon.

But we're not hearing much from MSM about how a 20% price drop in just one month will help consumers or the economy. And we're certainly not hearing anything about how the price drop will help the President or Republicans.

In fact, blogger Dan Gainer reports that as prices have dropped this past month, the major networks have actually continued to emphasize the increase in gas prices(bold added - JinC).

Gas prices fell steadily from October 6 and continued through the end of the month. The decline had little impact on media coverage. Stories about falling prices still made up just 21 percent of the coverage through October 30.

In fact, the national average price for regular gasoline isn't just lower than it was before Rita, it’s now more than 10 cents per gallon below pre-Katrina levels, according to AAA’s Fuel Gauge Report.
<...>
Even after it had admitted gas prices were falling, NBC still pushed the opposite.

During the October 28 “Nightly News,” anchor Brian Williams still reported a piece on gas prices this way: “NBC News In Depth tonight, the outrage across this country today everywhere people were ponying up to pay more for gas.” Reporter Anne Thompson followed up talking about a “summer marked by hurricanes and $3 gasoline.” She left out that gas had already fallen to $2.55 by that report.

Gainer has quite a bit more in his post. After reading it, I wondered again how the networks can claim they report the news accurately and free of partisan spin.

The Churchill Series - Nov. 5, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about Winston S. Churchill.)

As Prime Minister, Churchill frequently questioned what cabinet ministers said and did. Why were people assigned to that place? What excuse was there for problems with tank production? And why did he first learn about them when reading a newspaper?

While often sharp and angry, Churchill's communications could sometimes reveal his great sense of humor. One such follows.

Churchill is writing to his Secretary of State for Air, Archibald Sinclair. The two had formed a close friendship during WWI, when Churchill served in the trenches under Sinclair.

A Labour Party member, Sinclair supported Churchill's opposition to Chamberlain's appeasement policy. When Chuchill became Prime Minister, Sinclair joined him in Cabinet and some months later received the following from his friend:

I am very glad to find that you are as usual completely satisfied. I merely referred the Foreign Office telegram to you in order to test once more that impenetrable armour of departmental confidence which you have donned since you ceased to lead an Opposition to the Government and became one it its pillars.

Either you must have been very wrong in the old days, or we must all have improved enormously since the change.

_________________________________________
Cited in Roy Jenkins, Churchill: A Biography (p. 644).

Blog anniversary at Confederate Yankee

Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee is celebrating his first blog anniversary. Bob's had well-deserved success: 780 posts, 2100 comments, nearly 330,000 visits and 442,000 page views.

If you haven't already done so, drop by and give him a look.

His home page is here.

Bob's bio is here along with an explanation of how he came to call his blog, Confederate Yankee.

Congratulations, Bob. I'm glad you're in the neighborhood.

Please help this New York Times reader

Not too long ago The New York Times gave us "Fake But Accurate.” This morning it gives us "second- and third-generation immigrants."

Reporting on the riots in France, the journal of record says:

France has been grappling for years with growing unrest among its second- and third-generation immigrants, mostly North African Arabs, who have faced decades of high unemployment and marginalization.

And we all thought an immigrant was someone who leaves one country to settle permanently in another country. Well, that’s what comes from believing what you read in a dictionary.

Later in the story we're told:

The cultural divide between these second- and third-generation immigrants and the native French is deeper because they come from Muslim families, but to date the violence has had nothing to do with Islam.

Hold on! I need help.

What's the difference between a second- or third-generation immigrant and a native-born French person? And why does the Times offer no evidence to support its claim that “the violence has had nothing to do with Islam?”

I'm going to contact some bloggers I respect and ask for their help. I'd like to hear from you, too.

I'm glad my parents, children of immigrants who thought they were Americans because they were born here, never lived to see this day.

The Churchill Series - Nov. 4, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about Winston S. Churchill.)

It was May, 1936. Churchill's attacks on the government's appeasement of Nazi Germany had wearied and angered Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin who wanted to publicly denounce him.

But Baldwin knew he had to be careful. Churchill, though out of government and with but a small public following, was a fierce debater. A Baldwin attack would invite a Churchill counterattack that could leave Baldwin the loser.

So Baldwin remained publicly circumspect. But he poured out his upset in a letter to a confidant, Dr. Tom Jones. Here's part of it:

One of these days I'll make a few casual remarks about Winston. Not a speech - no oratory - just a few words in passing. I've got it all ready.

I am going to say that when Winston was born lots of fairies swooped down on his cradle [with] gifts - imagination, eloquence, industry, ability, and then came a fairy who said 'No one person has a right to so many gifts', picked him up and gave him such a shake and twist that with all these gifts he was denied judgement and wisdom. And that is why while we delight to listen to him in this House we do not take his advice."

________________________________________
Cited in Roy Jenkins, Churchill: A Biography (p. 419).

Do any Argentine protestors read USA Today?

(Welcome visitors from Michelle Malkin and Mudville Gazette open post.)

Michelle Malkin has photos of the Argentine protests of President Bush’s visit. One shows protestors carrying a huge banner with the image of far-Left hero and terrorist Che Guevara superimposed on a quilt-like background of flags of South and Central American countries.

In a recent USA Today op-ed, Ryan Clancy reminded us:

Che demanded worldwide revolution, even if it meant a stream of death and misery. He said the utopia that could be built on the ashes of the old world would make the suffering worthwhile. That's why he advocated a nuclear exchange during the Cuban missile crisis.

In fact, if you read through Che's speeches, with his constant refrain of glorious martyrdom, they're remarkably similar to another well-known "revolutionary" — the tall, bearded one holed up somewhere on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Che hated the United States and the global free market system that sustained it. Just ask him. "Let us sum up our hopes for victory: total destruction of imperialism by eliminating its firmest bulwark, the oppression exercised by the United States of America."

If Che's world vision had prevailed, it's safe to say that Apple founder Steve Jobs would have never brought us the iPod. After all, it's tough to innovate when you're stuck behind a donkey farming turnips for the proletariat.

USA Today is distributed worldwide. Didn't any of the Leftists in Argentina read Clancy's op-ed?

Or maybe the problem is that when your other heros are Stalin, Fidel, Mao, and Kim Il Jong, you won't believe anything bad someone says about Che.

Are you keeping up with ACLU?

Remember the American Civil Liberties Union's support of a Florida Muslim woman's refusal to remove her veil for her driver's license photo? Muslim countries that allow women to drive require them to remove their veils for license photos.

But Florida's ACLU Executive Director Howard Simon condemned what he said was the "government's tendency in the aftermath of September 11th to restrict numerous freedoms."

Just this week the ACLU's New York chapter has taken New York City to court over the city's subway-terror prevention program involving random searches of passengers bags and other items at subway entrances.

So is there any identity or security search program the ACLU will support?

Before you answer, take a look at John Byrnes' post here.

Guns in your home

To have or have not a gun in your home?

Some people say you're safer if you don't have a gun when someone tries to break into your home, but I've never heard of anyone throwing their gun out the window when they knew their house was being broken into.

The Churchill Series - Nov. 3, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about Winston S. Churchill.)

Below is the opening paragraph of John Lukacs’ masterful, The Duel, 10 May – 31 July 1940: The Eighty-Day Struggle Between Churchill and Hitler. For ease and comprehension, I’ve segmented the paragraph into four shorter ones. Otherwise, it's unaltered.

If you're new to theThe Duel, it’s a study of Churchill and Hitler’s leadership during the time Britain was first driven from the European continent, and then stood alone on its home islands and fought the Nazi horde.
_____________________________________________________________

In June 1940, a few days before Paris fell, Premier Reynaud broadcast to the French people: if Hitler wins the war, “it would be the Middle Ages again, but not illuminated by the mercy of Christ.”

A few days later, on 18 June, in his “finest hour” speech Churchill evoked the prospect, not of a return to the Middle Ages, but of a lurch into a New Dark Age.

If Hitler wins and we fall, he said, “then the whole world, including the Untied States, including all that we have known and cared for , will sink into the abyss of a New Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

That was a more precise statement than Reynaud’s - and perhaps more apposite now, fifty years later, when within and without the great conurbations of the Western world many of the signs and symptoms of a New Dark Age are rising. (p. 222)

The CBS producer who used forged documents has written a book.

Remember Mary Mapes? She was Dan Rather's producer for the 60 Minutes II episode that used forged documents in an attempt to smear President Bush eight weeks before the 2004 election.

CBS, with Rather and Mapes blessings, told us for days the anonymous source of the documents was "unimpeachable." Then we came to learn what they knew all along: Their "unimpeachable" source was long-time Bush hater and Democratic Party activist Bill Burkett.

Now, Mapes has a book out. David Boyd posts on National Review Online contributor Jim Gehaghty's take on excerpts in the current issue of Vanity Fair (Yes, Vanity Fair is the same magazine on whose cover Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame posed in a convertible.)

With respect to Gehaghty, I think David gets off the best line of the post:

Thank God for Mapes's book. We get to relive the whole glorious episode all over.

Take a look.

Newmark's Door: A blog to knock

Craig Newmark at Newmark's Door has a lot to offer. Here are a few samples:

Supposedly, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Goggle are hot to acquire AOL. Other than there being possibly--possibly--some value in AOL's IM network, I don't get this. Haven't we been through this "portal" stuff before? Late 90's? When almost everything on the Net is a click or two away, how important can portals be? (More discussion here.)

But I'll readily concede that I'm not as smart as Bill Gates and the guys at Goggle.

This post looks like a real money saver:

Newer cars--'96 and later--have computer chips that can be read by special instruments. Instead of paying an auto mechanic a bunch of money to read them, you can buy a machine, the Car Chip E/X, to read them yourself.

But the E/X costs about $150. So, this tip from a reader is potentially valuable: he claims that most Autozones, as well as other car-part chains, will read the chips for free.

There is always a lot to read once you knock on Newmark's Door.

Visit often and keep scrolling.

Palmetto Pundit is a good as ever

A few weeks ago I welcomed Palmetto Pundit back to blogging. Since then, he's been turning out one fine post after another. He's as good as ever.

A bonus for visiting: He has a beautiful sea scene framing his blog. It's so peaceful, it's got to drop your BP at least 20 points or so.

It happened yesterday in a coffee shop

Yestersay I had a brief, polite conversation with a fellow in a coffee shop. I’d never met him but he saw me reading a paper that headlined Scooter Libby’s indictment.

“That’s awful what he did,” the fellow said. “I hope he gets jail time.”

“We’ll see,” I replied.

“You don’t think he deserves to go to jail?”

“Well, he hasn’t been found guilty of anything. Innocent until proven guilty, right?”

Reader, I’ll bet you have a pretty good idea of what the fellow said next.

“Are you a conservative?”

I started to explain I wasn’t but the look on the fellow’s face convinced me it would be better to move on and say I bet we could both agree the weather was great.

We did, and he was on his way while I returned to my newspaper.

I doubt it occurred to him that what I said about Libby is what most Americans are taught to say about anyone who’s been indicted but not convicted.

But he thought that made me a conservative. Hmm.

"A Rosa Parks moment" for conservatives?

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post. )

Washington Times editor Tony Blankley calls the successful opposition to the Miers nomination a “Rosa Parks moment” for the “conservative opposition.” Conservatives:

refused to give up our seat on the bus even for a Republican president. Something important happened last week for conservatism -- and thus for the broader political scene.
<….>
(Such) broad, shoulder-to-shoulder conspicuous conservative opposition to a Republican president advocating a not liberal nomination or position is, I think, without precedent.
<…>
Whenever a seminal political event such as this happens, politicians and activists rush in to try to publicly explain and exploit it in a manner useful to their political objectives.
<…>
From the unctuous, faux-humble, faux-everyman Sen. Harry Reid, to the ever clever, ever-striving Sen. Charles Schumer, to their automaton stenographers in the mainstream media, this event was characterized as the triumph of the hard-right, extreme, radical, fundamentalist Christian, anti-abortion, doctrinaire, out-of-the-mainstream right wingers.
<…>
But in fact, the conservative coalition that defeated Miss Miers' nomination last week is the same broad based movement that has elected its candidate president in five of the last seven elections, elected 28 currently sitting governors and a Republican congress for the last decade.

Today, 34 percent of Americans are self-described conservatives, while only 19 percent are self-described liberals. When one adds only the most conservative third of the remaining 47 percent of self-identified moderates to the self-proclaimed conservatives, one has a voting majority in an American election.

So when they say we are out of the mainstream, they are using words in a manner inconsistent with reality. (Not for the first time, Tony. – JinC)

If there was a uniting theme to the conservative opposition, it wasn't anti-abortion, or any particular substantive issue.

Rather, conservatives respect the law. We have deeply resented its misuse for the last 70 years by clever and willful liberals who would usurp the law for their own policy purposes.
<…>
This was a revolt for excellence. It was a revolt for a faithful scholar of the law. It was a moment of high faith in reason, and in the blessings that will flow from a fair and wise reading of our founding document.

I’m with Blankley on a lot of what he says. But I wish he had spoken more in terms of conservatives having led a broad coalition which included independents and liberals who respect the law every bit as much as conservatives.

Independents and liberals for whom fairness and constitutional principles trump partisanship are often ignored in discussions of political and social issues.

I’ll say more soon about why I think that happens.

The Churchill Series - Nov. 2, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about Winston S. Churchill.)

When Churchill addressed Parliament on Dec. 11, 1941, the British public knew America had suffered a great defeat at Pearl Harbor and Japan's military forces were advancing throughout the Pacific.

The preceding day, Churchill had been shocked to learn that in a single engagement lasting but a few minutes, Japanese bombers had sunk two of Britain's great warships: the battleship, HMS Prince of Wales, and the battle cruiser, HMS Repulse. Most hands were lost, including Churchill's close friend, Admiral Sir Thomas Phillips.

In those circumstances, Churchill told Parliament:

Victory is traditionally elusive. Accidents happen. Mistakes are made. Sometimes right things turn our wrong and wrong things turn our right. War is very difficult, especially to those who are taking part in it or conducting it."

___________

Churchill's speech cited in Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Road to Victory, 1941-1945, (p. 3).

A spotlight on MSM’s Iraq War reporting

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post.)

What was the most important news out of Iraq last week? Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby says it depends on what you consider "important."

You want radical Islam and Ba'athist fascism defeated? You think democratic governments in the Middle East will make it less a breeding ground for terrorism and the world a safer place?

In that case, Jacoby says you’ll say the landslide Iraqi vote for their new Constitution was the most important news from Iraq last week.

But he notes others disagree with you:

That isn't how the mainstream media saw it.

Consider The Washington Post. On the morning after the results of the Iraqi referendum were announced, the Post's front page was dominated by a photograph, stretched across four columns, of three daughters at the funeral of their father, Lieutenant Colonel Leon James II, who had died from injuries suffered during a Sept. 26 bombing in Baghdad. Two accompanying stories, both above the fold, were headlined ''Military Has Lost 2,000 in Iraq" and ''Bigger, Stronger, Homemade Bombs Now to Blame for Half of US Deaths." A nearby graphic -- ''The Toll" -- divided the 2,000 deaths by type of military service -- active duty, National Guard, and Reserves.

From Page 1, the stories jumped to a two-page spread inside, where they were illustrated with more photographs, a series of drawings depicting roadside attacks, and a large US map showing where each fallen soldier was from.

<...>
There were many more stories and, of course. a photo of liberal MSM's current favorite "anti-war symbol," Cindy Sheehan.

Jacoby continues:

The Post didn't ignore the Iraqi election results. A story appeared on Page A13 (''Sunnis Failed to Defeat Iraq Constitution"), along with a map breaking down the vote by province. But like other leading newspapers, including The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times, it devoted vastly more attention to the 2,000-death ''milestone," a statistic with no unique significance apart from the fact that it ends in round numbers.

Every death in Iraq is heartbreaking. The 2,000th fatality was neither more nor less meaningful than the 1,999 that preceded it. But if anything makes the death toll remarkable, it is how historically low it is. Considering what the war has accomplished so far -- the destruction of the region's bloodiest dictatorship, the liberation of 25 million Iraqis, the emergence of democratic politics, the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, the abandonment by Libya of its nuclear weapons program -- it is hard to disagree with Norman Podhoretz, who notes in the current Commentary that these achievements have been ''purchased at an astonishingly low cost in American blood when measured by the standards of every other war we have ever fought."

But that isn't a message Big Media cares to emphasize. Hostile to the war and to the administration conducting it, the nation's leading news outlets harp on the negative and pessimistic, consistently underplaying all that is going right in Iraq. Their fixation on the number of troops who have died outweighs their interest in the cause for which those fallen heroes fought -- a cause that advanced with the ratification of the new constitution.(bold added -JinC)

Jacoby concludes:

Poll after poll confirms the public's low level of confidence in mainstream media news. Gallup recently measured that confidence at 28 percent, an all-time low. Why such mistrust? The media's slanted coverage of Iraq provides a pretty good clue.

Who are the 28% who Gallup reports have confidence in MSM news? The Democratic base? Moveon.org? People who like their news "fake but accurate?"

The Churchill Series - Nov. 1, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about Winston S. Churchill.)

In late December, 1941 Churchill arrived in Washington to meet with Roosevelt and begin joint Anglo-American war planning.

With the exception of a brief trip to Canada, Churchill remained in America for almost four weeks. While in Washington, he stayed at the White House.

The British government and people were understandably very interested to know what was transpiring with the Americans.

When Churchill flew back to England, landing at Plymouth on Jan. 17, 1942, a train was waiting to take him to London where at 10 PM that evening, the War Cabinet assembled to hear his report.

The minutes of that meeting include this:

The Prime Minister thought that (the Americans) were not above learning from us provided we did not set out to teach them.

Cited in Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Road to Victory, 1941-1945, (p. 43).

Associated Press liberal bias - 11/1/05

Under Deb Riechmann's byline, an Associated Press story, Bush Expected to Name New Nominee Monday, contains this sentence:

Conservatives revile O'Connor for staking out moderate and practical positions on controversial issues.

Reichmann doesn't name a single conservative who reviles Justice O'Connor, nor does she or her AP editors provide one example of O'Connor's "moderate and practical positions on controversial issues."

But providing such information would get in the way of the AP's reason for running that sentence: To tell readers conservatives are people who revile a public figure who is moderate and practical concerning controversial issues.

If you doubt that, read the sentence again:

Conservatives revile O'Connor for staking out moderate and practical positions on controversial issues.

It reads like a cut-and-paste from a Moveon.org attack ad. It does nothing but tell people what the AP wants them to believe about conservatives.

The AP could have told readers of conservatives' recent praise for O'Connor's dissent in Kelo and for much else. But that, as the pols say, "gets off message."

So the liberal journalists at the AP campaigned their way.

A wonderful day to visit Confirmthem.com

At Confirmthem.com, they do great job keeping us up on matters judicial, especially Supreme Court nominations.

Today, with Judge Alito's nomination, is an especially wonderful day to visit.

Here's a sample of what you'll find:

Judge Alito in his own words, from the Newark Star-Ledger, May, 2005:

“Most of the labels people use to talk about judges, and the way judges decide (cases) aren't too descriptive. …Judges should be judges. They shouldn't be legislators, they shouldn't be administrators.”

Gotta love it…

Judges judging and legislators legislating sure sounds wonderful. It's also constitutional, isn't it?

Go visit Comfirmthem.com

Hugh Hewitt has misjudged Sen. Schumer

Hugh Hewitt says, "Schumer Hits Bottom"

Chuck Schumer just argued that it is possible that Judge Alito, as Justice Alito, would roll back the achievements of Rosa Parks. That can only be understood as Schumer's belief that Judge Alito could find segregationist policies acceptable under the constitution. While it is undeniable that the nomination of Robert Byrd would have raised such a question, it is preposterous and indeed base to even hint at such a thing about a distinguished judge and public servant.

Hewitt is just wrong about Schumer. As low as his remarks today are, Schumer can easily go a lot lower.

So I'm sending Hewitt this email:
_____________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Hewitt:

I have a lot of respect for you, but you're wrong about Sen. Schumer hitting bottom.

Schumer can go a lot lower, and surely will before the nomination fight is over.

You're a fair-minded person. I'm confident that when Schumer goes lower than he did today, you'll offer a prompt and gracious admission that you misjudged him.

Sorry it has to turn out that way, but Schumer is Schumer. And the folks he fund-raises from make him even worse.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

When Casey exercised his right to choose

( Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post )

Betsy Newmark alerts us to “a very substantial analysis” of Judge Alito's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case involing a law that required spousal notification before an abortion.

The analyst, attorney and blogger Patterico, says Alito’s dissent will be the Democrats’ primary talking point against Alito.

No doubt Democrats and their MSM and interest group allies will make loud claims that Alito does not understand and respect “choice.”

Their claims should remind us of how the Democrats treated the Casey in Planned Parenthood v. Casey when he exercised his “right to choose.”

Robert Patrick Casey (1932-2000) was a life-long Democrat who rebuilt the party in Pennsylvania and served as that state’s governor from 1987 to 1994.

Shortly after Casey’s death, civil libertarian and writer Nat Hentoff called Casey:

"arguably the most liberal and efficient Democratic governor in the nation. Casey put millions of dollars into job training, helping over 330,000 people, most of them single mothers, out of welfare into solid jobs. And according to Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, a much respected pediatrician and professor, Casey's prenatal and child health care programs were 'a model for the rest of the country.’
<…>
Nonetheless, Casey's party treated him with disdain. As the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York approached, Casey told me he expected, in light of his policy accomplishments and political loyalty, to be a speaker.

But the Democratic Party refused to let Casey speak, because in exercising his right to choose he failed to choose the party line. Hentoff explains:

Casey was not asked to speak. In fact, he and his Pennsylvania delegation were exiled to the farthest reaches of Madison Square Garden--because Casey was pro-life.
<…>
Ron Brown, chief convention organizer and the Democratic Party's symbol of minority inclusion, told Casey, "Your views are out of line with those of most Americans."

Casey had the misfortune of being present during a great shift in the Democratic Party. A mere six years earlier, on September 26, 1986, then-Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas had assured the head of his state's chapter of the National Right to Life Committee, "I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortion." But, by the early '90s, the Democrats, seeking the votes of upper-middle-class Republican women, were de-emphasizing economic protection and stressing cultural libertarianism.

Clinton along with almost all other Democratic Party officeholders shifted to the "choice" position.

Clinton was nominated by New York’s Governor Mario Cuomo who brought the crowd to its feet when he declared:

"Bill Clinton believes, as we all here do, in the first principle of our Democratic commitment: the politics of inclusion."

The Democrats missed the unintentional irony of Cuomo's inclusion claim.

Casey would later ask publicly, "What has become of the Democratic Party I once knew?"

The Democratic Party Casey once knew has, for the most part, morphed into the collection of office holders, MSM claques and interest groups we're about to watch tear into Alito in hope of destroying his reputation and chance to serve on the Supreme Court.

Here's news for NY Times editor Bill Keller

( A special welcome to visitors from Betsy's Page and Mudville Gazette open post )

Do bloggers report news or just recycle it?

An MSM journalist recently gave readers New York Times executive editor Bill Keller’s answer: "Bloggers recycle and chew on the news. That's not bad. But it's not enough."

Keller’s answer may be genuine, but it’s hardly accurate.

Bloggers were the lead reporters on the Jayson Blair/ Howell Raines scandal, one of the worst to hit journalism in the last 50 years. And Dan Rather admits bloggers took the lead on what just about everyone but Rather calls “the discredited” CBS 60 Minutes II Texas Air National Guard memo story.

Blog reporting happens every day. It’s often ahead of MSM and more comprehensive as well.

A recent example involves racist and genocidal statements delivered by a scholar at an Oct. 14 forum sponsored in conjunction with Minister Louis Farrahkan’s “Million More Movement” march in Washington. The forum was held on the campus of Howard University and broadcast live by C-SPAN.

MSM appears to have largely ignored the story.

But on Wednesday, Oct. 19, Jon Sanders, an editor at The John Locke Foundation, a center right think tank in Raleigh, North Carolina posted at The Locker Room, the foundation’s blog. Sanders began:

I'm hearing about comments made by a Kamau Kambon on C-SPAN for the "Millions More Movement." Nothing in any mainstream media that I can find so far, but the Freepers are among those discussing it.

In that post and another the following day, Sanders reported that Kambon, a Raleigh bookstore owner and recent faculty member at North Carolina State University, had made a number of racist and genocidal statements. Among them, that black people needed to decide:

how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.

Throughout Thursday, Oct 20, Sanders did what good reporters are supposed to do: he got out front on the story and dug. Sanders learned that Kambon had taught at the university as recently as the Spring ’05 semester. Sanders subsequently posted a statement from the university Provost, Larry Nielsen:

"The remarks recently attributed to one of our former employees do not in any way represent the values and standards of the university. This type of speech is counter to any reasoned discussion on the issue of race relations, and is absolutely unacceptable in the NC State community."

On Thursday evening, Mike Adams, a University of North Carolina – Wilmington professor published an online column at Townhall.com in which he summarized the story and gave readers contacts.

On Friday, Oct. 21, MSM was still silent but bloggers were covering the story.

Michelle Malkin told her readers what had happened in a post: "WE HAVE TO EXTERMINATE WHITE PEOPLE".She linked to Sanders and Adams.

Bloggers who live in the Raleigh area joined Sanders on the story. Besides providing excellent summary reports, they added important depth to the story.

For example, while as far as I know Kambon has never publicly made the sorts of statements he made at Howard, it’s widely known in Raleigh that he rejects racial reconciliation. Kambon views race relations in America in terms of blacks versus whites.

So at Betsy’s Page, she asked some very “to the point questions” about how and why NC State hired Kambon.

The Pirate Cove urged readers to contact Raleigh’s major newspaper, The News & Observer, which had failed to report anything on the story.

Right in Raleigh reported that Kambon, in addition to advocating racial genocide was an opponent of the death penalty.

Friday evening, Fox News became the first MSM news organization I’m aware of to report on Kambon’s remarks, something I'm sure will come as no surprise to Bill Keller.

On Saturday, Oct. 22, Confederate Yankee told readers he was sorry to be late getting to the story. He then provided a fine service: A survey of Raleigh area news organizations’ coverage of Kambon’s racist and genocidal remarks.

Also on Saturday, Raleigh’s N&O finally reported the story. But unlike Confederate Yankee, The N&O didn’t tell its readers it was sorry to be late doing so.

The N&O's news story, the only one on Kambon's call for racial genocide it has published, began:

Political Web sites throughout the country are crackling this week in response to statements by a former instructor at N.C. State University, who said blacks must "exterminate white people off the face of the planet."

No explanation was offered for why The N&O and the MSM had been so silent.

There’s more that can be said about blogger reporting on this important story.

But this post, which I’m sending to Editor Keller, ought to give him enough to chew on for now.

If Keller responds, I'll publish his reply in full.

A very good Libby reaction roundup

The Florida Masochist's roundup of newspaper and blog reactions to Scooter Libby's indictment is concise while offering a broad range of opinions.

One of the best lines is William's opener:

After two years of hoping to see Karl Rove frog-marched in a perp walk, liberals got the veep's chief of staff hobbling on crutches.

Take a look at the whole thing. One sharp quote follows another; and they come from left and right as well as some newspapers that still insist their "objective."

MSM influences opinion, policies and war outcomes.

David Boyd linked to military analyst Victor David Hanson's Oct. 27 New York Times op-ed, 2000 Dead, in Context.

Among other things, Hanson notes the influence of war reporting on public opinion which in turn influence war policies and outcomes:

It is conventional wisdom now to praise the amazing accomplishment of June 6, 1944. But a few ex tempore editorial comments from Geraldo Rivera or Ted Koppel, reporting live from the bloody hedgerows where the Allied advance stalled not far from the D-Day beaches - a situation rife with intelligence failures, poor equipment and complete surprise at German tactics - might have forced a public outcry to withdraw the forces from the Normandy "debacle" before it became a "quagmire."

Hanson reminded me of a post I put up following this year's D-Day observances.

Other than a little tweaking to shorten it, here it is.
_____________________________________________

The D-Day anniversary reminded us of what we owe the extraordinary men and women who made our success possible.

It also led me to ask how today's media would have reported the invasion and some other WWII events.

Below is a satire of many MSM news organizations’ contemporary war reporting. All historical references are accurate save two. One, the report of the success of Enigma project which in fact remained a secret until many years after the war. The other is the work of the "peace activist" who ends our "news report."

Now here’s ABC’s Evening News – June 8, 1944

Charles Gibson: “Good evening. We begin tonight with the war news. And there’s plenty of that, including reports of a serious split in the ranks of Allied military leaders.

When we first reported the D-Day invasion, we believed Americans and British military leaders had agreed on the invasion plan. Now we learn that was not the case.

We go first to Linda Douglas at the War Department. Linda, we’re hearing rumors of serious disagreements among Allied military leaders? Any truth to them?”

Douglas: “There certainly is, Charles. A source, who must remain anonymous, told me Eisenhower’s air chief, Leigh-Mallory, strongly opposed the plan to drop paratroops into Normandy during the early hours of D-Day. He feared they couldn’t achieve their objectives and would suffer massive casualties.

Eisenhower, not an airman and with no experience commanding paratroops, went against Leigh-Mallory’s advice and ordered the drop anyway.

Now, although the paratroopers achieved their main objectives, even Ike’s headquarters is admitting many lives were lost.

Gibson: “Well then, Linda, do we know yet who will replace Eisenhower?”

Douglas: “No.”

Gibson “Well, do we at least know when he'll be replaced?”

Douglas: “I’m afraid that might not be soon, Charles. Ike’s boss, General Marshall, is solidly behind him.”

Gibson: “That’s really not too surprising since Eisenhower is a Marshall protégé. Well, thank you, Linda.

Now we go to Terry Moran at the White House. Terry, do we know why President Roosevelt has failed to tell the American people anything about this major split in Allied leadership? He spoke to the nation on D-Day and said nothing about it”

Moran: “That’s right, Charles. And he’s still said nothing. And I’ve got to tell you that just from where I’m standing here on the White House lawn that looks like a really huge blunder.”

Gibson: “And why is that, Terry?”

Moran: “Because it makes you wonder if Roosevelt really knows what’s going on in Normandy.”

Gibson: “Indeed, Terry. ABC News will continue to follow this story.

Now we bring you another report in our series, Your Right to Know. This one concerns a top secret effort to decode German military and diplomatic communications. It’s called the Enigma project.

. George Stephanopoulos is here to explain it to us.

George, can you tell us first whether this Enigma matter is really as important as it seems, or are the Allies exaggerating its importance in order to draw attention away from the quagmire that’s developed in Normandy?

It’s almost 48 hours since the invasion began and they're still not in Germany.”

Stephanopoulos: “Charles, Enigma is really big news. The allies are intercepting and reading communications the Germans thought were secure. They’re doing it in almost real-time”

Gibson: “Thank you, George. Now we go to Berlin where Admiral Karl Donnitz, in charge of German submarine warfare, is standing by.

First, Admiral, thank you for taking time to be with us.

Donnitz: “A pleasure, Mr. Gibson.”

Jennings: “Admiral, I don’t know whether you’ve heard yet, but ABC has just reported the Allies have for some time been intercepting and reading German communications, including those of your submarine fleet.

So if I may, Admiral, I’d like to begin by asking if you would be good enough to give us your reaction to the news. …..Admiral?….We seem to have lost our contact with Berlin.

Well, we’re almost out of time.

Tomorrow night we’ll bring you our Person of the Week. She’s a peace activist who wants the schools in her town to let children wear swastika armbands and learn to goose step so they can better understand children in Germany. But some angry parents and a hostile school board don’t share her dream of a more peaceful world.”

Sen. Clinton as a Libby defense witness?

(Welcome visitors from Michelle Malkin. )

The Associated Press is reporting Scotter Libby plans to use the lack-of-memory defense.

In that case, shouldn't he call Senator Hillary Clinton as a defense witness?

For 2 years, she couldn't remember where she had put her law firms records that investigators were seeking.

Then when someone found the records on a table in the White House, the then first lady couldn't think of any way they could have gotten there.

If you don't believe that, ask a liberal friend.

(If you enjoyed this post you may also like: Sulzberger's syndrome and how to avoid it.)

Firzgerald's findings so far

I have a lot or respect for attorney and Powerline blogger John Hinderaker. Here's part of what he's saying about independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation to date:

As to Libby, the indictment is devastating. If the facts alleged are true--and they are evidently based on the testimony of a considerable number of witnesses--they can't be chalked up to inadvertence, misstatement or differing recollections. The indictment alleges that Libby had a number of conversations with various people in the executive branch, from Vice-President Cheney on down, about the fact that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. It alleges further that Libby had conversations with several reporters in which Plame's CIA employment was discussed.
<...>

If Rove is not indicted, what we have here is a terrible human tragedy affecting one man, Scooter Libby, but not a serious problem for the administration. On the contrary, it is evident from the indictment itself that administration officials including Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, and others followed President Bush's order to cooperate fully with the Plame investigation. But it's premature to conclude that the administration is out of the woods until we find out what, if anything, happens to Rove. In the meantime, Libby is entitled to a presumption of innocence, notwithstanding the grim picture that the indictment paints.

I don't know what will happen next, other than that most of those who thought President Clinton's lying to a grand jury and the American people was no big deal will be telling you Libby's indictment is A VERY BIG DEAL.

Sulzberger's syndrome and how to avoid it.

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post. )

According to the Associated Press, New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. acknowledged during a keynote address to the Online News Association that The Times was too slow to correct errors in stories reported by Judith Miller concerning WMD in Iraq.

A question and answer session followed, during which the AP reports:

When asked by a member of the audience whether the Times' credibility had been hurt by what the questioner termed its failure to fire Miller,(Sulzberger) responded, "No, I don't."

He added, however, "There's no question that the Times suffered in the reputation."

Confusing, isn't it?

Sulzberger is saying The Times' credibility has not been hurt by its failure to fire Miller, but there's no question The Times' reputation has suffered.

Poor Sulzberger.

But that's what happens to anyone who regularly reads Paul Krugman columns.

So if you do, stop now. For yourself and those you love.

White House and WaPo: Something in common

Today's Washington Post has a page one story concerning how the Miers came about and then quickly went off the track: Nomination Was Plagued By Missteps From the Start

Naturally, we're given a lot of "inside stuff;" almost all of it from anonymous sources.

Nothing new there.

But the following sentence quoting an anonymous White House source is worth noting for the explanation it offers for the anonymity.

"This thing never got off the launching pad very well," said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because public airing of self-criticism is not encouraged in the White House.

Anonymity "because public airing of self-criticism is not encouraged in the White House."

That explanation doesn't work.

The source isn't airing "self-criticism." The source is criticizing White House management of the nomination process.

So why not a sentence like this:

"This thing never got off the launching pad very well," said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because White House staffers are discouraged from making public criticisms of colleagues just as we're discouraged from publicly criticizing colleagues here at the Post."

That works, doesn't it?

What makes a good teacher?

Teacher and blogger Betsy Newmark got talking yesterday about how you decide who's a good teacher.

I was reminded of a boy about 10 or 11 I talked with a few years ago. He said his Fifth Grade teacher was "real good."

Why was she "real good?"

"Well, she makes you work hard but you learn a lot in her class," he answered. "And she ain't mean or nothing, but the kids that mess, she gets them."

Take a look at Betsy's post.

And add a comment here about what you think makes a good teacher.

Why I hope it's Judge Priscilla Owen.

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post )

I hope President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is Appellate Court Judge Priscilla Owen.

Legal scholars who believe judges should judge and legislators should legislate say Owen's an outstanding jurist.

Just five months ago, Owen won Senate confirmation for an appellate court seat. Her background was checked then. There'll now be a need for a further background check, but it won't have to be extensive and most likely won't turn up a "smoking gun."

So the case for prompt confirmation hearings and a Senate vote is very strong. With Owen, there's no reason why the hearings and a Senate vote can occur before the Christmas recess.

During the almost four years Senate Democrats denied Owen an up or down nomination vote, they hit her with personal attacks (Remember Sen. Tom Harkin calling her “a wacko?”) and hostile questioning.

Throughout it all, Owen was civil, informed and articulate. She'll do very well during confirmation hearings, however partisan they become.

When nominated for the appellate court, the American Bar Association awarded Owen its highest recommendation for federal judicial nominees, Well Qualified. The vote by the ABA’s nomination review committee was unanimous.

It’s very probable the ABA would again find Owen Well Qualified, something that will carry weight with a great many Americans. If the ABA doesn't, it will have to convince an awful lot of people it hasn't morphed into just another left-leaning advocacy group

The case for not nominating Owen can be stated in one sentence: Her nomination will be fiercely opposed by almost all Senate Democrats, and their allies in MSM news organizations and liberal and leftist advocacy groups.

That’s true. But given Owen's outstanding record, it’s no reason not to nominate her, especially as any other similarly well qualified nominee will also be fiercely opposed by those same people.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, let Owen's opponents do their worst; as long as her supporters do their best, she'll be confirmed.

No doubt the vote will be close. But a win is a win, and for Presidents, winning close votes usually adds to their power to lead.

When President Bush took office in Jan. 2001, many doubted he could effectively lead given the close and disputed 2000 election. But in April 2001, Bush won a 53 – 47 Senate vote that assured passage of his $1.35 trillion tax cut. Thereafter, no one doubted he could lead, save those who'll forever wave “the Florida shirt.”

With Owen as his nominee, the President can soon and with confidence present to the American people an outstanding jurist he first helped vet and then place on the appellate court bench. That can only be good for him and the country.

You can "vote" for Owen in an online poll at Reasoned Audacity. You'll have to "write her in" because it appears that as of 10/28 Reasoned Audacity "election officials" have yet to place Owen's name and photo on "the ballot."

But don't be discouraged. "Vote" Owen and keep your fingers crossed.

The general was a Pope

Recall yesterday I asked if anyone knew the name of the Civil War Union general who, upon taking a command promised. "I'll have my headquarters in the saddle."

Well, JinC's most faithful reader, Anonymous, and history teacher and blogger Betsy Newmark have identified him as John Pope.

Pope's biographical sketch at www.civilwar.com includes this:

In bombastic fashion he declared his headquarters would be in the saddle. This led to a quip that he didn't know his headquarters from his hindquarters.

You can read more about Pope here.

Now, can we tie the "hindquarters" remark to Lincoln? I've heard he said he was concerned to have a general whose "headquarters are in his hindquarters."

I don't have a Lincoln biography in the house, and won't get to the library until Sunday.

In the meantime, can anyone find a source that cites Lincoln as having made the "hindquarters" remark?

Sen. Clinton won't like this one bit

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post )

With a hat tip to the Media Research Center, blogger Scott Pierce at Right in Raleigh reminds us that in 2000 independent counsel Robert Ray determined then first lady Hillary Clinton gave false testimony when questioned before a grand jury about the 1993 White House travel office firings that occurred as President Clinton took office.

Scott tells us how the networks reported on Clinton's false testimony (That's Hillary's false testimony, folks, not Bill's). Scott adds:

If the current special prosecutor offers a similar bottom line verdict on Rove or Libby, it's not a stretch to suggest the networks would be at the front of the liberal lynch mob insisting that they lose their jobs. But five years ago they snoozed when they learned about Hillary Clinton's false testimony.

Take a look at the post, and maybe clip and save it. You can show it to your liberal friends in the next few days or in '08.

No blogging until this evening. Then plenty

Folks,

Busy day today.

But I'll be posting this evening including a response to another email I received from the Senior Editor of The Gallup Poll and comment on how Raleigh's News & Observer reported the remarks of the Raleigh racist Kamau Kambon, who's now advocating genocide.

Please come back tonight after 8 PM Eastern.

Thanks.

John

Can you name the general?

I'm trying to recall the name of the Civil War Union general who, upon taking command of an Army, announced he wouldn't be one of those stay safe in camp generals.

He'd be up front with the troops. "I'll have my headquarters in the saddle," is the way he put it.

When President Lincoln heard of the remark, he told an aide it worried him to have a general whose "headquarters are in his hindquarters."

Can anyone identify the general and cite a source?

He may be "down," but he sure is "up."

The Florida Masochist has been hit by Wilma and may by now have lost power. But I doubt he's lost his sense of humor.

This morning, FM put laughter and Al Franken in the same post.

You don't think that can be done?

Then go to FM's If this be treason post. He has part of a David Letterman/Al Franken transcript and then his comment.

I laughed. I think you will to.

Thanks, FM. May things work for you and all the folks in Wilma's path.

Thank you, Anonymous

A while ago I put up a post: Smile or grown?

I meant: Smile or groan?

A reader and frequent commentator here, Anonymous, tactfully called the error to my attention with this: "groan" - not "grown"

Thank you, Anonymous, for providing the needed correction without the "You think you're so smart. You don't even...."

And please keep commenting.

Hold it! Does commenting have one or two m's?

Do you smile or groan?

Do you usually smile or groan when you read pun headlines such as:

Phone company rings up record profit

And:

Electric rate increase shocks customers

Whichever you do, here's one more from today's online edition of Boston University's student newspaper, The Daily Free Press.

Reporting on a major rowing event on the Charles River, the headline editor gave us:

Rowers make waves

I smiled at that one.

If you have a favorite pun headline, pass it on. If I get enough, I'll put a post up.

Dem mixes religion, money and his election

(Welcome visitors from Michelle Malkin and Mudville Gazette open post)

Democrats and their MSM pals are always complaining about people who mixing religion and politics, right? And they're always complaining about rich people tossing money around to influence elections, right?

Well, not when it's one of their own doing the mixing and tossing.

Michelle Malkin links to an Associated Press story that begins:

New Jersey Sen. Jon Corzine, a former Wall Street executive with a portfolio worth $261 million, has been giving some of his money to black churches, raising questions about whether it's generosity or politics.

The Democrat, who is in a tight race for governor, donated or loaned more than $2.5 million last year to black churches. He has received the endorsement of more than two dozen black ministers.

<...>

According to one of the recipients of Corzine's largess, the money has not influenced him or his church's endorsement.

The Rev. Reginald T. Jackson, executive director of the Black Ministers Council and pastor of St. Matthew's AME Church in Orange, N.J., said black ministers have been making personal endorsements of candidates since 1981. The council does not make endorsements.

Jackson's church has received thousands of dollars from Corzine over several years, including a $50,000 loan last year.

In their endorsement of Corzine last month, Jackson said the black ministers chose the Democrat because he "will be a leader of a state at two extremes — at one end the wealthiest state in the nation and at the other end one of the poorest states in the nation."

Hmmm!

Where are all the liberals in and out of the media? Don't they have any concern about religion, money and politics being so tightly mixed? Shouldn't they be especially concerned about the mix when it's happening right in their own political house, so to speak?

Where are Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi? They should speak out and condemn what Corzine and the ministers are doing even if doing so upsets the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Miers nomination should be withdrawn

Michelle Malkin is urging bloggers to cast a vote at NZ Bear on the Miers nomination.

I vote withdraw. On Oct. 12 I gave some reasons for withdrawal in this post: We need a White House rescue operation. The case for withdrawal is stronger today than it was then.

I think the White House then and now is just making a bad situation worse.

Below is White House contact information. Do your part to convince folks there that when a ship's been hit by a torpedo, the emergency response pumps are for getting water off the ship, not bringing more on board.

White House contacts:

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461

Email: comments@whitehouse.gov

Are Americans becoming more like Europeans?

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post )

They'll always be individual Americans and Europeans who differ greatly one from another. But overall, are we two peoples becoming more alike than different?

Economist and pundit James Glassman thinks we may be. That troubles him.

(W)hen it comes to public policy, Europe has taken a wrong turn. Its welfare state has sapped initiative and driven jobs abroad. Its treatment of immigrants is shameful. Unemployment is in the double digits, health policy is making people sicker, and foreign policy is based on isolationism and moral posturing.

The results are predictable: The countries that use the euro will grow 1.2 percent this year, according to The Economist; the United States will grow 3.5 percent. Similar disparity has prevailed for a decade, and Americans today have a living standard about one-third higher. The notion that Europe will be able to compete with resurgent China and India in the next 30 years is laughable.

Turning from Europe to America, Glassman asks:

Is it inevitable that, as we grow more prosperous, we will become more like Europe - losing initiative, insisting that our governments coddle us? I worry that we are beginning to see the initial signs of just such a turn for the worse.

Initial signs of just such a turn? I think we've been making the turn for decades but I'll save that for another day.

Glassman says to get out of the turn America needs a mix of government policies and personal initiative. Government policies should include increased emphasis on science education, rejection of protectionist trade practices, and a restructuring of corporate taxes so American companies can better compete in international markets.

About personal initiative Glassman believes:

The personal counts more (than government action). America has a choice: more like Europe, or more like Asia. Actually, Asia has become more like America in recent years, so the real choice is whether we want to be complacent Europeans or our hard-working, compassionate, imaginative American selves.

Glassman over generalizes in that last paragraph. Many Europeans are anything but complacent, and many Americans are anything but hard-working, compassionate and imaginative in the constructive sense Glassman means.

Glassman provides a lot of information and a reasoned argument to convince Americans we need to watch where we're going lest we wind up where we didn't want to be.

Please read his column.

Here's proof The New York Times isn't worth what it was.

People may argue whether or how far journalism standards have fallen at The New York Times. But we can agree what's happened to The Times' parent company's stock price the last few years. It's dropped big time while the market hasn't.

The Times is the flagship property of The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT), which Business Wire reports also owns The International Herald Tribune, The Boston Globe, 16 other newspapers, eight network-affiliated television stations, two New York City radio stations and more than 40 Web sites, including NYTimes.com and Boston.com.

The following price information is from Yahoo finance.

NYT closing price as of 10/21/2005 - 27.09

It's 52 week price range - 26.85 - 41.62

A scan of NYT's 1 year price chart indicates its 52 week high occurred about this time last year.

A chart comparing the NYT's and Dow Jones Industrial Average price movements for the last year is here.

A chart comparing their price movements for the last 2 years in here.

And there's lot's more financial information you can gather about NYT by going here.

How do you explain the drop in NYT's stock price?

Comments welcome.

"How Eminent Domain Ran Amok"

You're upset by the recent Supreme Court Kelo decision, which makes it OK for local governments to take your home or business under eminent domain, and turn it over to private investors who want to use your property to make a profit for themselves?

So is former National Law Journal editor Carla T. Main. She has a lengthy, fact-filled and thoughtful article, How Eminent Domain Ran Amok, at Real Clear Politics.

She tells us how the Supreme Court got to Kelo and how tough it's going to be to undo the damage Kelo's already doing to the property rights of Americans. But we can undo Kelo.

Here’s part of what Main says:

For many years, the subject of eminent domain, or “takings,” was the purview chiefly of academics and a narrow subspecialty of lawyers. But after June 23, 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 5–4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., the term immediately found its way into heated debates in legislative chambers and the flying mud of electoral campaigns nationwide.

In Kelo, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutionally permissible for the city government to take a group of working-class homes from their owners and turn the parcel of land over to private parties for the purpose of economic development. Kelo thereby tapped into deep-rooted questions of money and class, its result threatening to violate that most sacred of American domains: the home.

The Kelo decision is testament to the expanding use of police power by the state for the advancement of private interests that are often in cozy relationships with local municipal governments.(Bold added - JinC)

The Florida Masochist has been sounding the alarm bell on Kelo since the day the decision came down. He’s provided his readers some shocking examples of local governments using Kelo for property confiscation.

I’m going to email FM and see if he’ll post with links to some of his earlier Kelo posts and update us with his latest.

If he does, I’ll post and link here.

Getting back to Main, her article is here.

Speaking up for Big Oil

Let people attack me. I'm going to say a good word for big oil.

In the supermarket yesterday I compared prices of the same brand of olive oil in 16 oz. and 68 oz. bottles. Neither was on special sale.

16 oz. bottle - 39 cents per oz.

68 oz. bottle - 20 cents per oz.

OK, you say, but who wants to have to pour every day from a 68 oz. bottle?

Well, you can decant from the 68 oz. bottle to the smaller one as needed.

Think about it, if you don't already do it.

Why pass on a chance to cut your oil bill in half?

Oops, your olive oil bill.

Editor mocks The New York Times

(A warm welcome to visitors from Mudville Gazette's open post.)

Former Vanity Fair and New Yorker editor Tina Brown writes an opinion column in today's Washington Post. She mocks The New York Times for creating The Judy Millar Saga. Publisher Arthur Salzburger Jr and Executive Editor Bill Keller are among Times leaders Brown mocks.

Yes, mocks a strong word. But look at some of the things Brown says, and see if you don't agree it's an accurate descriptor.

Brown begins:

The age of the blogosphere has produced a new genre of mainstream journalism: fake transparency. The New York Times has become its foremost practitioner.

Brown then zooms in on The Times' explanations/not explanations of just what reporter Judy Miller has been doing the last few years.

After reading the 6,000-word takeout in Sunday's Times on the Judith Miller/I. Lewis Libby farrago in the Valerie Plame/CIA leak case, accompanied by Miller's own strangely cryptic narrative of her belated grand jury testimony, I know even less than I thought I knew before.

<...>

Readers would rather have waited and gotten a story they could at least understand. Newsrooms, however, can't handle that kind of old-fashioned restraint. The blogs are baying to be fed, the competition is kicking their butt on the story, the stock price is down. "Transparency" turns into a combination of partial truths and morose institutional venting that makes everyone, including the readers, feel worse about themselves and the newspaper than they did before.

<...>

For Brown, the Judy Miller saga is symptomatic of major institutional problems at The Times.

Don Van Natta's team-reported narrative included such baffling details as Times Executive Editor Bill Keller blandly noting that, after he took her off the Iraq story because of her lead role in co-authoring the erroneous stories of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Miller "kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm." Drifting? On her own? Is the Times after Blair ( Jayson Blair, a Times reporter, whose fake and inaccurate stories The Times published. - JinC) some sort of trackless sea, with lone castaways afloat on rafts? To whom do reporters report? IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Brown feels The Times needs adult supervision. But she's not looking to Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to provide it.

Such is the power of Dame Judith's mystique with Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. that his paper quotes him as saying it was Miller's "hand on the wheel" throughout the course of the legal decision-making even though his editors seem to regard her as a less malleable version of Madame Chiang Kai-shek.

Brown isn't finished with Sulzberger. Further down we read:

You have to feel sorry for Sulzberger. Like every spirited young man who inherits a newspaper, he hankers after something more exciting than sitting in the front office fretting over the price of newsprint. He wants to feel as real in his role as valiant publisher as his reporters -- those driven, passionate, sometimes reckless seekers after truth -- feel in theirs. When he threw his support behind Miller's fight to protect her sources, he didn't think he was in a bad reality show. He thought it was an Oscar-winning movie -- "The Pentagon Papers 2."

Mocks an accurate descriptor, isn't it?

While I've been critical of The Times, I take no joy in reading what Brown tells us. I'd like to think things are better at The Times than we've been reading.
But if things are better there, why is The Times reporting what its reporting?

One caution on Brown's column. She touches on BBC/Gilligan and CBS/Rather, and falls into the "fake but accurate" pit. But that's a small part of an otherwise interesting column.

You can read all of what Brown says here.

Good news! Palmetto Pundit 's back.

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette. And "thank you" to the Greyhawks for their open link.)

Barry at Palmetto Pundit is back!

He was very good before. I think he’s better now.

Look at his latest post: Double Standard—Big Time.

Barry reports on legal action parents have taken against a California school system that’s been teaching 12-year olds religion.

No, not really religion says the Byron Union School District. It was all just cultural.

What sort of cultural teachings were the children given?

Well, teachers put 12-year old students into "Islamic city groups," gave them Islamic names and identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the Star and Crescent Moon, the universal symbol of Muslims.

What's more, the children were given materials that instructed them to “Remember Allah always so that you may prosper.”

Barry has more about it. Please make a visit to Palmetto Pundit and keep scrolling.

A blogger and a journalist team to set things right

Go over to Confederate Yankee to learn about an important mistake an MSM journalist made. It got corrected with a big assist from one of our own Tar Hell bloggers, Bob Owens.

Bob spoted a major statistical error in MSM reporting from Iraq. He emailed the reporter who first reported the error. There was a bump or two, and the reporter initially disagreed with Bob but things worked out.

The MSM reporter corrected his mistake in a way that left you thinking, "Why can't we have more journalists like this guy?"

Bob's devotes a lot of his community service time to helping make Raleigh's News & Observer a better paper.

Good luck, Bob. We're glad you're in North Carolina and the blogosphere.

An MSM story: I think you'll smile.

(Welcome visitors from Betsy's Page and other blogs I may have missed.)

A friend called over the weekend and we got to talking about journalists.

He recalled that some years back The New York Times had run a series of exposes of business companies. For sources, The Times relied heavily on current and former employees of the companies. The Times called it sources "whistle blowers."

Some time afterward, when there was all the trouble involving Times reporter Jayson Blair and executive editor Howell Raines a good number of Times employees complained about standards and practices at the paper.

My friend was talking to a Times editor about that time and decided to do a little needling.

"Looks like you've got a lot of whistle blowing going on in your newsroom," he said.

"Those people," the editor replied. "They're just disgruntled."

And so it goes.

Thank you to Mudville Gazette for an open link

( Reader,

Here's a link to a post that may interest you. It contains the full-texts of two documents.

One is an email a press officer for North Carolina's Gov. Mike Easley sent to a news editor at a major NC paper.

The other is a column the editor subsequently wrote in which she reported at length on matters mentioned in the email but told readers nothing about the email until she characterizes it in the last two paragraphs of her column.

The email was not public at the time the column appeared and normally would not have become public. But in response to a blogger's request, the Governor's office released a copy to him two weeks after the editor's column appeared.

I know of no journalist in NC who has been critical on the record of the editor's reporting.

Again, here's a link to the documents. I hope you read them. Comments are welcome.

John)

Reader note added 10/20/2005 at 12:15 PM Eastern

Press office email. Editor Sill column

This post contains full-text copies of two documents. One is an email sent by the press office of North Carolina Governor Michael Easley to The Raleigh News & Observer’s executive editor for news Melanie Sill. The other is a column Sill wrote for News & Observer readers following her receipt of the email.

The email became public three weeks after Sill wrote her column.

The documents are provided as a service for anyone interested in contemporary American journalism.

Governor Easley’s press office can be reached at: governor.office@ncmail.net

Editor Sill can be reached at: msill@newsobserver.com
________________________________

Email sent Aug. 9, 2005 from Cari Boyce, Governor’s press office to Melanie Sill, executive editor for news at Raleigh’s News & Observer.

Thank you for your recent call to our office about the Governor’s availability to reporters at the News & Observer. Specifically, it is my understanding that you are writing a column on “public officials who will not take or answer questions about public policy matters.” You cited, as an example, Barbara Barrett’s recent story on pardons and clemency.

In the past month, the Governor has had at least six public events in the Raleigh area where he has been available and has made public comments about a variety of issues. The News & Observer staff has been made aware of these events and they have all been open to your reporters. As you and your reporters know, the Press Office staff routinely works with reporters who would like to ask “off-topic” questions at public events and attempt to accommodate them whenever possible. For example, Matthew Eisley spoke with the Governor regarding the bonds for the N.C. Art Museum at last Thursday’s Bill of Rights ceremony. Furthermore, Ms. Barrett was also at the event and had the same opportunity to ask the Governor questions as did Mr. Eisley.

Ms. Barrett contacted the Press Office requesting an interview for her story on pardons mid-afternoon on Monday and claimed that she had a Wednesday deadline. She was given all the information that she requested about the process and the status of the cases in question. Subsequent questions also were answered after her stated deadline. Because of the ongoing negotiations with the legislature over the budget, the Governor’s schedule simply did not permit a one-on-one interview with her.

Other than Ms. Barrett, I am not aware of any recent requests by reporters at your paper for interviews with the Governor on any topic. Your assertion that the Governor does not comment on “public policy matters” is simply not accurate.

The Governor’s Press Office will continue to accommodate media requests when appropriate but it will continue to be done in balance with the other responsibilities and scheduling demands of the Governor. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me.
_________________________________________________


Editor Melanie Sill’s column, Aug. 9, 2005

Governor's position? No comment

Accurate news reporting depends on information from first-hand, knowledgeable sources. That’s why The N&O’s reporting is hampered when people who are the principal players in news stories say “no comment’ or refuse to be interviewed. When those people are public officials, the interest of an informed public is seriously harmed.

Many public officials show endless patience in providing information and answering questions, but a growing list seems comfortable adopting no comment as standard practice.

The latest example is Gov. Mike Easley’s absence from a story by Barbara Barrett on Sunday. Barrett was writing about several former convicts whose sentences had been overturned, now waiting for Easley to decide on their requests for “pardons of innocence.” Barrett’s requests for an interview with Easley were denied, and official spokespeople provided little real information. In the end, we were not able to answer the obvious question about why the governor (who has sole authority under the constitution to issue pardons) had not acted on the requests.

Other examples abound. Public information officers who don’t return phone calls. Police chiefs and sheriffs who won’t answer questions about their agencies and whose officers won’t provide information that’s supposed to be public. Large state agencies that funnel all requests to a single person, a person who usually doesn’t have the knowledge required to answer questions.

In June, Raleigh Police Chief Jane Perlov refused to be interviewed by The N&O after the departure of several officers from the force amid reports that they had failed to respond to routine police calls in North Raleigh. She authorized a prepared statement.

In July, news broke that during his time as Kansas head coach, UNC basketball coach Roy Williams had approved gifts from team supporters to players who had graduated or used up their eligibility, a violation of NCAA regulations. Williams wouldn’t talk to N&O reporters; instead, he released a statement. After repeated requests for comment, he relayed brief responses to a couple of questions through a spokesman back to The N&O. Williams is one of North Carolina’s highest-paid state employees based just on his $260,000-plus university salary (a fraction of his total pay).

Early this year, N.C. State football Coach Chuck Amato wouldn’t grant us an interview — on the phone or in person — after three assistant coaches resigned. N.C. State released a statement in early January from Amato, who continued to be unavailable, at least for interviews with The N&O. A week later, we sent a reporter to track Amato down at a meeting in Kentucky for a few minutes, just to get some basic questions answered. This wasn’t a “gotcha’ kind of story, just normal reporting about the ups and downs of a high-dollar public athletic program. The coach was a principal source, or should have been.

If you’re a media basher, you might cheer this behavior. But public officials who won’t discuss issues central to their public responsibilities are dissing you, the public, not The N&O. (They brush off other news outlets as well).

We’re asking the kinds of questions readers often ask in online forums, letters to the editor and notes or calls to The N&O. "Why was this done? Why WASN’T this done? " We can do a better job of reporting – more accurate, complete and fair – when people who know the answers decide to comment rather than give the cold shoulder to reporters.

Which brings us back to Easley. Governors have many official duties, and we don’t expect Easley to be available for interviews on every story. (He should have people who can represent his administration’s positions). But a quick survey of this newsroom brought his name back repeatedly for being unavailable to answer questions about a number of policy matters: Overweight trucks on North Carolina highways, for instance. The transfer of state land to Currituck County, a big political fight earlier this year involving Easley and Sen. Marc Basnight.

In April, Andy Curliss, who covers the governor’s office, asked to interview Easley about one of his pet issues, the state lottery. The request was declined. Sure, the governor is busy. But doesn’t his job involve explaining his thinking on major public policy like a state lottery?

While working on this column, I sought to hear Easley’s side of things. I put in a request to interview the governor or his representative on Monday afternoon, noting I was on deadline. The response? No interview with the governor or anyone else. Instead, I received a lengthy email statement from Cari Boyce in the governor’s press office saying that our reporters are free to chase down the governor at public events (as they do as often as they can) and ask him questions.

Thanks, Ms. Boyce, but that’s not what I asked.
_________________________________________________

Right in Raleigh puts the info out there

Some bloggers don't hold back; they just put the information out there.

Scott Pierce at Right in Raleigh is one such blogger. Go take a look at what happened when Scott sent an email to The Raleigh News & Observer's Ted Vaden regarding The N&O's - how shall I put this - tilting to the left. Yeah, that does it.

Anyway, you can easily follow the whole thing because Scott gives you his email, Vaden's response, and then Scott's second email back to Vaden.

Nice blogging, Scott. You're helping folks learn about The N&O.

Spotlight on Sill’s “no comment” column

(Readers Please Note: This post is intended to provide additional information for people reading the post: Journalist offers “unsolicited advice.” If you came here before reading that post, I ask that you go to Journalist offers "unsolicited advice" and read until you get to a link which will bring you back here. You'll know it when you see it. Thank you. John)

In a recent column titled, Governor's position? No comment , Raleigh News & Observer executive editor for news Melanie Sill complained about North Carolina public officials and others people she feels don’t make themselves available to N&O reporters and herself for interviews and don’t provide information The N&O wants.

Here’s part of what Melanie said:

The latest example is Gov. Mike Easley’s absence from a story by Barbara Barrett on Sunday. Barrett was writing about several former convicts whose sentences had been overturned, now waiting for Easley to decide on their requests for “pardons of innocence.” Barrett’s requests for an interview with Easley were denied, and official spokespeople provided little real information. In the end, we were not able to answer the obvious question about why the governor (who has sole authority under the constitution to issue pardons) had not acted on the requests.

At the time Melanie wrote that, she had in hand an email sent to her by the Governor’s press office.

Here’s part of the email(A full-text copy is in the middle of this post: The editor, the Governor, and we, the readers):

In the past month, the Governor has had at least six public events in the Raleigh area where he has been available and has made public comments about a variety of issues. The News & Observer staff has been made aware of these events and they have all been open to your reporters. As you and your reporters know, the Press Office staff routinely works with reporters who would like to ask “off-topic” questions at public events and attempt to accommodate them whenever possible. For example, Matthew Eisley spoke with the Governor regarding the bonds for the N.C. Art Museum at last Thursday’s Bill of Rights ceremony. Furthermore, Ms. Barrett was also at the event and had the same opportunity to ask the Governor questions as did Mr. Eisley.

Ms. Barrett contacted the Press Office requesting an interview for her story on pardons mid-afternoon on Monday and claimed that she had a Wednesday deadline. She was given all the information that she requested about the process and the status of the cases in question. Subsequent questions also were answered after her stated deadline. Because of the ongoing negotiations with the legislature over the budget, the Governor’s schedule simply did not permit a one-on-one interview with her.

Other than Ms. Barrett, I am not aware of any recent requests by reporters at your paper for interviews with the Governor on any topic. Your assertion that the Governor does not comment on “public policy matters” is simply not accurate.

When Melanie wrote her column, the email from the governor’s press office had not been made public. It only became public three weeks after Melanie’s column appeared when I posted on the column and email in the post I linked to above. So at the time they read it, the only things N&O readers knew about the email was what Melanie reported to them in the last two paragraph’s of her column.

Here are the two paragraphs:

While working on this column, I sought to hear Easley’s side of things. I put in a request to interview the governor or his representative on Monday afternoon, noting I was on deadline. The response? No interview with the governor or anyone else. Instead, I received a lengthy email statement from Cari Boyce in the governor’s press office saying that our reporters are free to chase down the governor at public events (as they do as often as they can) and ask him questions.

Thanks, Ms. Boyce, but that’s not what I asked.

If you’ve read The editor, the Governor, and we, the readers you know I asked Melanie four questions beginning with why she hadn’t made the email available to her readers and ending with:

Is your reporting on the email and Governor Easley and his staff a fair example of how N&O staffers report on public officials and their staffs?

Although I sent Melanie multiple emails inviting her to respond to my questions, I've heard nothing back.

I know of no written comment Melanie has made about her reporting on the email.

In addition to her duties as executive editor for news at Raleigh’s News & Observer, one of North Carolina’s two largest daily circulation newspapers, Melanie Sill is a leader in state and national journalism organizations. She is a strong supporter of Sunshine Week, a nationwide effort by journalist to get government to be more open and accountable.

EASY RETURN TO: JOURNALIST OFFERS “UNSOLICITED ADVICE

Journalist offers "unsolicited advice"

Media critic Jay Rosen and Raleigh News & Observer executive editor for news Melanie Sill have had some back- and-forth regarding journalism. I posted on some of what they got into here: Please editor Sill: Stop the fuss and answer the questions.

Now, at his eponymous blog Greensboro journalist Ed Cone has offered Melanie what Cone calls “unsolicited advice.” Some of Cone’s “unsolicited advice” has to do only with Rosen. I don’t want or need to get involved in any that.

But I came to find out from friends that two pieces of Cone’s “unsolicited advice” involved me. (I found one link to Cone's post. It takes you to the date he posted, after which scroll down to where he begins: Transparency and conversation are fairly new...

Cone twice used John in Carolina posts to support his advice to Melanie as you’ll see if you click on the “sometimes” hyperlinks in the two pieces of his advice that follow:

Sometimes, it's best to continue the conversation with more info, even if the challenge comes from a determined antagonist with an agenda you will never satisfy.

And sometimes, it's best to counterpunch -- in this case, I'd say, give me a break, get a sense of proportion, we'll cover Air America's travails in roughly the same manner as we cover Rush Limbaugh's trials, not the way we cover an investigation into the White House.

I wish Cone hadn’t used - really misused - my posts. But since he did,I'm responding.

I left a few very brief comments at Cone's blog mainly to let people who went past his post and into the comments know there was more than Cone was saying.

Now, I’m sending Cone the following email.

(Reader, Before reading the email, please read this post: Spotlight on Sill’s “no comment” column. A current knowledge of what’s in the Spotlight post is essential to understanding the email I’m sending Cone.

There’s an EASY RETURN hyperlink at the bottom of the spotlight post which, with a click, brings you back to this post. Please go and return. Thanks.

<...>

Glad your back. Now to the email
_____________________________________________

Dear Mr. Cone:

Regarding your “Sometimes, it’s best to continue the conversation with more info” advice to Melanie Sill, what info are you referring to?

Do you mean Melanie should answer the questions I asked of her in the post, The editor, the Governor, and we, the readers, which is part of the first of my two posts to which you linked?

Do you recall one of the questions I asked Melanie:

Is your reporting on the email and Governor Easley and his staff a fair example of how N&O staffers report on public officials and their staffs?

Many people who have read both Melanie’s column and the email from the governor’s press office say, yes, her column is a fair example of how The N&O reports. Some people have even said it’s typical of journalists in North Carolina.

What do you think? Is Melanie’s column a fair example of how The N&O reports? Is it typical of journalists in North Carolina? Would you have reported on the email as Melanie did?

I’m trying to find at least one journalist here in North Carolina who, after reading the column and the email, has written anything critical of the way Melanie reported the email to her readers. Do you know of one?

Regarding the part of your advice to Melanie that begins, “And sometimes, it's best to counterpunch” and ends “into the White House” I’ll say just this for now: What you advise Melanie to do seems discordant with the facts of the Air America matter as I recall them.

But I’m going to double check those facts in order to be sure any criticism I make of you is soundly fact-based. That’s only fair to you; and it will help keep me from looking foolish.

I’ll read carefully all my Air America posts. I’ll also read carefully Melanie’s Air America posts and her readers'comments, paying particular attention to those which bear directly on your “sometimes …counterpunch …into the White House” advice. They are Re Air America complaints and comments (25); and Air America, part II: Good shots, all and comments (78).

I noticed that following your link to one of my posts, you advised Melanie concerning “ a determined antagonist with an agenda you will never satisfy.”

I hope you agree that when we speak of others we may or may not be revealing anything about them, but we’re always revealing something about ourselves.

I’m putting a link to a post in the comments following your advisory post to Melanie.

Look for at least two more posts responding to those pieces of your “unsolicited advice” which linked to John in Carolina.

John
________________________________________________________

I plan to have the next post up by Tuesday evening. Please come back.