Christian Science Monitor Going Out of Print

and totally online...

From the NY Times:

Christian Science Paper to End Daily Print Edition

After a century of continuous publication, The Christian Science Monitor will abandon its weekday print edition and appear online only, its publisher announced Tuesday. The cost-cutting measure makes The Monitor the first national newspaper to largely give up on print.

The paper is currently published Monday through Friday, and will move to online only in April, although it will also introduce a weekend magazine. John Yemma, The Monitor’s editor, said that moving to a Web focus will mean it can keep its eight foreign bureaus open.

“We have the luxury — the opportunity — of making a leap that most newspapers will have to make in the next five years,” Mr. Yemma said.
...

Mr. Yemma said that print did bring in money at The Monitor, but most of that was from subscriptions, not advertising. Subscriptions account for about $9 million of The Monitor’s revenue, while print advertising makes up less than $1 million. Web revenue is about $1.3 million, he said. He is projecting that circulation revenue will drop, but he expects the magazine format will appeal to print advertisers. He is planning cuts, too. Mr. Yemma said he was planning some layoffs on both the 100-person editorial side and the 30-person business side. “I’m not sure the same number of people will be needed,” he said, but “there’s certainly nothing like a draconian cut coming.”

Under the new system, reporters will be expected to file stories to the Web and update them a few times a day, and write longer pieces for the weekend magazine.

Mr. Yemma said he hoped to establish CSMonitor.com as an essential place for international news. The site now gets about three million page views a month, according to comScore, and Mr. Yemma said he wanted to increase that to 20 million to 30 million a month in the next five years. Even if he can fill the site only with remnant, cheap ads, he said, if visits grow as he is projecting, “that’s a sustainable model.”

The magazine, which will have an international focus, is meant to satisfy readers who are attached to print, Mr. Yemma said, but he said he did not expect it to be hugely profitable.

I give them points for taking the seeing the future and facing it head on. I am certain that their success or failure will be major factor in how fast other papers and magazines make the transition.

Sliming Sarah

I think its important for bloggers to lay their biases out in the open.
Particularly if one happens to be a moderate/centrist/independent.
Moderates are supposed to be more objective than their more partisan counterparts. Having said that here's my latest bias. I don't like Sarah Palin. Not one bit. And I don't have a good reason for it. Literally as soon as she came onto my radar the alarms started going off. The last time that happened during a presidential race was in 2000 when W declared his candidacy. So I'm going to trust my instincts about her but for the purposes of this blog try to be as objective as possible.

Having said that I do think that the feeding frenzy the media and blogtopia has gotten in over Sarah Palin has reached unprecedented levels. Certain actions of hers have been misrepresented and then in turn presented as the truth repeatedly
by both liberal and moderate bloggers. In particular the book banning inquiry and subsequent firing of the questioned librarian has been woefully misconstrued. The latest blogger of note to propagate that myth (and others) is Juan Cole over at Salon. His recent post, "What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick" presents several half truths as fact. So below are a list of his assertions contrasted with what FactCheck.org has to say on the same matter.

Cole:

while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin inquired of the local librarian how to go about banning books that some of her constituents thought contained inappropriate language. She tried to fire the librarian for defying her

Fact Check:

Palin never asked that books be banned; the librarian continued to serve in that position; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication.

It's true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla's librarian, on at least two occasions.
...
Palin never asked that books be banned; the librarian continued to serve in that position; no books were actually banned
...
Moreover, although Palin fired Emmons as part of a "loyalty" purge, she rehired Emmons the next day, and Emmons remained at her job for two-and-a-half more years. Actually, Palin initially requested Emmons' resignation in October 1996, four days before the public discussion of censorship. That was at the same time she requested that all four of Wasilla's department heads resign.

Cole:

Palin argued when running for governor that creationism should be taught in public schools, at taxpayers' expense, alongside real science.

Fact Check:

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

Cole:

The GOP vice-presidential pick holds that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or severe birth defects, making an exception only if the life of the mother is in danger. She calls abortion an "atrocity" and pledges to reshape the judiciary to fight it. Ironically, Palin's views on the matter are to the right of those in the Muslim country of Tunisia,
...
Palin's stance is even stricter than that of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In 2005, the legislature in Tehran attempted to amend the country's antiabortion statute to permit an abortion up to four months in case of a birth defect. The conservative clerical Guardianship Council, which functions as a sort of theocratic senate, however, rejected the change. Iran's law on abortion is therefore virtually identical to the one that Palin would like to see imposed on American women
...
Saudi Arabia's restrictive law on abortion likewise disallows it in the case or rape or incest, or of fetal impairment, which is also Gov. Palin's position.

Fact Check:

*crickets chirp*

(OK, he's right on that count.)

There are real issues that Palin can be taken to task on like fiscal responsibility, accepting earmarks while claiming to be a reformer, CCing her husband on all executive level emails. In fact if you'd like to see a conservative do a fine job of it check out the blog Eunomia over at American Conservative magazine. He smartly points out her faults without ever once propagating a single falsehood. Ultimately that is what separates vetting from sliming. We need more of the former and less of the latter. I may not like Palin but that doesn't mean I don't want her to be treated unfairly.

However at the rate mistruths are being propagated about she may eventually catch up with Obama on the slimed scale. And given how heated things get during presidential election that might be about as fair as blogtopia can manage.

Thanks to Northloop Neighborhoods for linking to this post.

The WaPo on Bob Barr

The Washington post did a two page article on Bob Barr today. I'd like to say it was well written, thoughtful, insightful but unfortunately I can't In fact over at TMV Jazz Shaw called it a "hit piece". Personally I can't agree. First of all its hard to call anything in the style section of the WaPo a political hit piece. What it was in fact was an attempt to marginalize Bob Barr. I mean any article that talks more about his dimples than his political positions isn't trying to take the man seriously.

I really have to wonder if there isn't some ulterior motive in both the content and the placement of the article. I mean after all Bob Barr is the most politically viable candidate the Libertarian party has run in a long time. Thats bound to ruffle a few feather. But the least the WaPo can do is tackle the man on his merits rather than try to portray him as a flaky Libertarian also-ran. NPR managed to at least do that much. I'll leave it to you to divine what what that means about the differences in journalistic integrity of the two. As for the WaPo, they could have at least given the man his due.

H/T Memeorandum

America's Other Crisis

The slow death of logic and critical thinking...

It looks like the tin foil hat brigade is starting to form a consensus about the war in Georgia...

Apparently its all a Republican plot orchestrated so that McCain can win the election.

From the Huffington Post

What a Convenient Little War for The Republicans

In classic "Wag The Dog" scenario there is a neat little war brewing between American and Russian proxies, and real Russian troops, in the Caucacus Mountains on the Russian border.
...

What is most interesting is that McCain's chief foreign policy aide, Randy Scheunemann,
has been advising/ lobbying for pro-western Georgia for the last four years.

Can't you just imagine what happened?

Randy lets it be known to the Georgian President that this would be a good time for Georgian troops to invade South Ossetia, which had been an autonomous territory for more than a decade. The Georgians didn't take much persuading, as they had been wanting to crack down with their troops for a long time.

And with American -- Republican -- support, what a better time to act?

Meanwhile Bush is conveniently meeting with Putin at the Olympics in Beijing and lets it be known that if Georgia attacks Ossetia, the US will not "mind" -- Wink Wink -- an aggressive response from Russia.

I recognize the Huff Po for the partisan tool that it is but when your writers start expousing pet conspiracy theories and you happen to be running one of the most heavily trafficked US political blogs on the web its doesn't do crap for your credibility.

I see this as part of a disturbing trend in American culture. Considering that 25% of all Americans believe they have been wiretapped and a double digit portion (lost the link to the poll courtesy of Firefox 2.1) of Americans believe that either the government could have prevented 9/11 and didn't or were behind it in the first place I'm inclined to think that the number of people that are using the basic tools of reasoning is on the decrease. And if Mr. Fleetwood, who used to be a journalist at several reputable publications, is any indicator those same irrational people are actually getting jobs of influence and import which is doubly disturbing.

As for the Huff Po they'd do well to realize that the longer they allow their writers to use their blog as a staging ground for pet conspiracy theories the more they damage their positions and their party.

Yay, More Media Bias

Looks like the MSM is starting to mirror blogtopia more and more.

About the AP:

Ron Fournier says he regards Sandy Johnson, his predecessor as head of The Associated Press’s Washington bureau, as “a mentor.”

Johnson, though, regards Fournier, who replaced her in a hard-feelings shake-up in May, as a threat to one of the most influential institutions in American journalism.

“I loved the Washington bureau,” said Johnson, who left the AP after losing the prestigious position. “I just hope he doesn’t destroy it.”

There’s more to her vinegary remark than just the aftertaste of a sour parting. Fournier is a main engine in a high-stakes experiment at the 162-year old wire to move from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as “cutting through the clutter.”

In the stories the new boss is encouraging, first-person writing and emotive language are okay.

So is scrapping the stonefaced approach to journalism that accepts politicians’ statements at face value and offers equal treatment to all sides of an argument. Instead, reporters are encouraged to throw away the weasel words and call it like they see it when they think public officials have revealed themselves as phonies or flip-floppers.

The new approach was on display in a Liz Sidoti news analysis written earlier this month with the lead, “John McCain calls himself an underdog. That may be an understatement.”
...
Fournier and other critics of the conventional press model, especially those on the left, have said that being released from the tired conventions of news writing is exactly what journalism needs.

By these lights, the mentality that presumes both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight is what prevented the media from challenging the Bush administration more aggressively on the Iraq war and other issues.

Others warn that what Fournier and other proponents see as truth-telling can easily bleed into opinionizing — exactly the opposite of the AP’s mission of “delivering fast, unbiased news.”

“The problem,” says James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web columnist and a frequent critic of what he sees as the AP’s liberal bias, “is that while you can do opinion journalism and incorporate reporting into it, you can’t say you’re doing straight reporting, and then add opinion to that.”

And Mr. Taranto is right in my opinion. Once a news agency abandons objectivity they cease to be a credible news source. By allowing opinion to be presented amongst fact even a little they create a slippery slope and risk becoming nothing more than a well funded investigative blog. And while I wouldn't mind seeing a few more of those around the need for truly objective journalism is even greater. Does this mean I won't be quoting the AP anymore? Nope. But it does mean that I will be scanning the articles that I link to for obvious bias.

Related Posts:
This Liberal Media Bias

So Sue Me

Recently the AP Newswire sent cease and desist letters to several lower tier bloggers threatening legal action because the bloggers had their quoted articles. They have since backed away from that and have instead insisted on payment from anyone that quotes more than four words from one of their articles. Its total BS. I'm not going to pay the AP one dime. Ever.

What the AP fails to understand is that given the way search engines work the more bloggers link to their posts the more traffic their site receives thereby increasing their ad revenues. They are in essence shooting themselves in the foot. Additionally I don't think they can win such a case in court. It wasn't that long ago that the AP had a script set up on their site that displayed links to blogs that cited their stories. Hence by turning around and suing those that they encouraged to link to their material they would in effect be guilty of attempting to entrap those same bloggers.

I may not be a lawyer but I know BS when I see it.

Thanks to Memeorandum, Locomotive Breath , and ShortWoman for linking to this post.

WaPo Swiftboating Obama?

They certainly aren't doing anything to dispel rumors that he's a Muslim. In fact they are propagating them. Case in point:

Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him

In his speeches and often on the Internet, the part of Sen. Barack Obama's biography that gets the most attention is not his race but his connections to the Muslim world.

Since declaring his candidacy for president in February, Obama, a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama's stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.

Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a "Muslim plant" in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn in earlier this year.

As if the title isn't bad enough if you read the whole two page article you'll not that they list every Muslim related rumor against Obama without ever bothering to verify the validity of them. In so doing they lend the assertions passive merit. At best its really shoddy journalism at worst its an attempted hatchet job. Its a sad day for journalism when a major media outlet allows itself to devolve into a half baked partisan blog.

Thompson Alleges Fox News is Biased Against Him

Fox News? Biased? Say it ain't so! But against a mainstream Republican? That's new.

From The Hill:

Thompson charges Fox News is biased against his campaign
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) suggested on Sunday that Fox News is biased against his campaign, charging that the network highlights commentators who have been critical of his run for the presidency.

In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace pressed Thompson on how some conservatives have lambasted Thompson's campaign and showed clips of Fox conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes criticizing the former senator.
Thompson said, "This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth." He noted that other conservatives have praised his bid for the GOP nomination and took issue with a Fox promo that focused on polling in New Hampshire, where Thompson is registering in the single digits.He said he is running second in national polls and has been leading or tied for the lead in South Carolina for "a long, long time."

Thompson, in a firm, but measured tone, scolded Wallace: "...for you to highlight nothing but the negatives in terms of the polls and then put on your own guys who have been predicting for four months, really, that I couldn't do it, kind of skew things a little bit. There's a lot of other opinion out there."

Frankly I think Thompson is just catching flack for not being the ultimate conservative candidate his pre-announcement supporters made him out to be. Combine that with the lack of energy his campaign has shown and his dropping poll numbers and disappointment turns into ire. Fox on the other hand has reported the facts if only the negative ones. I don't hold Fox to any journalistic standards of fairness but this represents a new low for them. Make no mistake if this type of slanted coverage continues Thompson is done for. It proof positive of how important some vaguely resembling in journalism is even if it is from a partisan point of view.

Poll: U.S. Public Distrusts Media

More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.

And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.

More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.

More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America". more

No surprise there. Considering that since the last such poll was taken reporters been exposed for making news up and not checking major facts (ala Dan Rather). Add to that the influence of talk radio and the poll results make perfect sense. As for bias, it happens. Its human nature to filter stories with personal perspective. Thats where bloggers come in. Bloggers hold the medias feet to the fire by double checking their facts and pointing out their biases. Its a strange relationship but in the end we increase the accuracy of the news we opine about. And in the end its possible that bloggers may help restore America's faith in the media. That is of course provided that it doesn't completely devolve into infotainment and sound bites before then.

More Media Bias?

Is it me or is much of the MSM seems to really be pulling for Hillary Clinton? I mean now that Edwards is barely in the race they seem intent on dissecting every word Obama has said since the youtube debate. I have a bit of a anti-Hillary Clinton bias so I thought I'd check.

The Press vs John Edwards

Many seem to be of the opinion that the national press corp doesn't like John Edwards. Which I can understand as as I don't much care for him myself. However since I don't have a really strong feeling about him or any major factual basis for my dislike I keep it to myself. Hence, I originally blew off the idea until I read this today from the NY Post

EDWARDS GOT RICH HURTING THE POOR
by Charles Hurt
Trailing in the polls, John Edwards spent the past week telling the poor and downtrodden how much he cares about them.

He even insisted that his Kennedy-esque "poverty tour" was not part of his campaign to capture the White House.

Yeah, just like all those years he spent latched to the back bumper of an ambulance were all out of the goodness of his heart.

That and the $38 million fortune he amassed as the most successful personal-injury lawyer in North Carolina history.

What made Edwards such a brilliant attorney - and a pretty good politician - is his ability to look you in the eye while picking your pocket and convince you that's really not his hand on your wallet.

And so he stopped in the hinterlands of Wise, Va., to commiserate with the poor there who can't afford health care. Even if they could, they'd have to drive a hundred miles to find a doctor.

"We're here to help," Edwards assured them.

There are plenty of causes for this sad heath-care situation. But Edwards wasn't talking about one of the biggest causes - the cause he is among the most responsible for.

"The primary factor is liability insurance," said Dr. Stuart Weinstein, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Iowa. "It's either too expensive in areas like that or simply not available anymore."

Virginia's medical-liability insurance rates - driven largely by the very types of lawsuits that made Edwards a multimillionaire many times over - have more than doubled in three years, according to the nonpartisan Medical Liability Monitor.

In Edwards' home state, those premiums quadrupled. As a result, doctors have fled rural areas or quit practicing altogether.

Here to help?

No, thanks.

So it seems that there may be something to the claim as Chucky didn't once bother to quote a source, cite a reference, or provide communication frequencies to the mothership that told him all of this. I know the NY Post doesn't specialize in things like truth, accuracy, or reason but come on. What I do know is that the NY Post isn't brave enough to go where no press has gone before ( thereby risking a libel or slander suit). So maybe there is something to the claim.

Bloggers usually state their biases either up front or over the course of time but MSM journalists(outside of editorials) usually don't and aren't required to. Those biases were first recognized by the right but the blatant lack of professionalism the media has sunk to over the past few years have made it apparent that "objective journalism" is in real peril. (No, not the Castle Arghhh! type of peril.)

The anti-Edwards bias is just the latest example of that. We all need to make a point of calling BS on the press whenever we find it even if it isn't to our political advantage otherwise the press will never have cause to change. The majority still rely on the MSM for candidate information and an ill informed electorate is a greater threat to true democracy than all of the hanging chads in Florida.

Hello? Media? Hellooo......

Syria invaded Lebanon. Where's the 24/7 News coverage? Where's the blow by blow reporting?

From Michael J Totten's blog:

A few days ago Lebanese daily newspaper Al Mustaqbal quietly reported a limited Syrian invasion of Lebanon. (Via Naharnet.)Syrian troops on Thursday reportedly have penetrated three kilometers into Lebanese territories, taking up positions in the mountains near Yanta in east Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

The daily Al Mustaqbal, citing sources who confirmed the cross-border penetration, did not say when the procedure in the Fahs Hill overlooking Deir al-Ashaer in the Rashaya province took place.

The sources said Syrian troops, backed by bulldozers, were fortifying positions "in more than one area" along the Lebanese border, erecting earth mounds and digging "hundreds" of trenches and individual bunkers. more

Syria has advised that all of its citizens leave Lebanon as there will be "an expected "eruption" in that country"

So why didn't this offensive move get the same level of coverage as Israel's defensive incursion?

I'm afraid the only answers I can come up with either laziness, boredom, or bias. And I'm leaning towards bias because if Israel had done the same thing the Media would have been on that story like white on rice.

BTW

Drop by Mr Totten's blog as he's currently on a self/reader funded trip to embed himself in an American unit in Iraq.

Moyers on Murdoch

Bill Moyers has a few thoughts to share about Rupert Murdoch's potential buyout of the Wall Street Journal and modern media in general. All of which I agree with.



You can also read it here.

H/T to TMV

Administration Targets Shield For Bloggers

The Bush administration on Thursday blasted a congressional proposal that would shield a broad swath of news gatherers, including some bloggers, from revealing their confidential sources.

WASHINGTON--The Bush administration on Thursday blasted a congressional proposal that would shield a broad swath of news gatherers, including some bloggers, from revealing their confidential sources.

The latest draft of the Free Flow of Information Act would pose a grave threat to national security and federal criminal investigations by protecting far too large a segment of the population, a U.S. Department of Justice official told Congress.

The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web," Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing here. She also argued it would protect "a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans."

Justice Department opposition has bedeviled Congress throughout its numerous attempts in recent years to enact federal shield laws. Supporters say such legislation is needed in light of high-profile cases involving New York Times reporter Judith Miller and what free-press advocacy groups characterize as a sharp rise in subpoenas to reporters in recent years.

Laws recognizing some form of "reporter's privilege" already exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia--but, crucially, do not shield journalists from federal prosecutors. The Bush Administration claims there's no evidence that source-related subpoenas to reporters are on the rise and argues that it already has robust internal guidelines, including a requirement that the attorney general personally approve such subpoenas and provide an appropriate balance between press freedom and investigative needs. more

I think this further highlights a truly disturbing trend from this administration. This has been the most secretive administration in decades and one of the few that has sought to punish those that report leaks legally. If the press (and bloggers) have to fear being prosecuted for telling the truth then what real reporting would get done? The free flow of information is central to the strength of our democracy.

Additionally this behavior sows more seeds of distrust causing citizens to become increasingly wary of this administration's attempts to further increase its surveillance powers. Such behavior actually hinders needed attempts to change current surveillance laws to help combat terrorism.

Furthermore as the press moves more towards infotainment bloggers are increasingly becoming a source for news not covered by the press and thus deserve some protection under the law.

Our founding fathers valued free speech enough to make certain that it was among the first rights to be protected and America has rarely been ill served by erring on the side of its own liberties.

Sudan's Own Tokyo Rose

Denying Genocide in Darfur -- and Americans Their Coca-Cola

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, May 31, 2007; A02

The Iraq war gave us Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi information minister who, while American troops patrolled nearby streets, held a defiant news conference to proclaim that there were no U.S. forces in the city.

Baghdad Bob, whose real name is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, earned a place among the ranks of colorful propagandists such as Hanoi Hannah and Tokyo Rose. Now, the genocidal Sudanese government has an entry in this category. Let's call him Khartoum Karl.

Karl -- a.k.a. John Ukec Lueth Ukec, the Sudanese ambassador to Washington -- held a news conference at the National Press Club yesterday to respond to President Bush's new sanctions against his regime. In his hour-long presentation, he described a situation in his land that bore no relation to reality.

Genocide in the Darfur region? "The United States is the only country saying that what is happening in Darfur is a genocide," Ukec shouted, gesticulating wildly and perspiring from his bald crown. "I think this is a pretext."

Ah. So what about the more than 400,000 dead? "See how many people are dying in Darfur: None," he said.

And the 2 million displaced? "I am not a statistician."

Khartoum Karl went on to say that, all evidence to the contrary, his government does not support the murderous Janjaweed militia. "It cannot happen," he said, "so rule it out." As for the Sudanese regime itself: "We are the agents of peace, people like me, my colleagues who are in the central government of Sudan."

What's more, the good and peaceful leaders of Sudan were prepared to retaliate massively: They would cut off shipments of the emulsifier gum arabic, thereby depriving the world of cola.

More

Allow me to say this...

Khartoum Karl, bite me.

Americans would rather pay more for soda than finance genocide. We may be soda swilling, burger eating, reality TV watching plebeians but the majority of us would rather drink tea than finance genocide.

We Now Return to our Regularly Scheduled Blog Post

From the NY Times
Truth, Fiction and Lou Dobbs

The whole controversy involving Lou Dobbs and leprosy started with a “60 Minutes” segment a few weeks ago.

The segment was a profile of Mr. Dobbs, and while doing background research for it, a “60 Minutes” producer came across a 2005 news report from Mr. Dobbs’s CNN program on contagious diseases. In the report, one of Mr. Dobbs’s correspondents said there had been 7,000 cases of leprosy in this country over the previous three years, far more than in the past.

When Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” sat down to interview Mr. Dobbs on camera, she mentioned the report and told him that there didn’t seem to be much evidence for it.

“Well, I can tell you this,” he replied. “If we reported it, it’s a fact.”

(snip)

According to a woman CNN identified as a medical lawyer named Dr. Madeleine Cosman, leprosy was on the march. As Ms. Romans, the CNN correspondent, relayed: “There were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years.”

“Incredible,” Mr. Dobbs replied.

Mr. Dobbs and Ms. Romans engaged in a nearly identical conversation a few weeks ago, when he was defending himself the night after the “60 Minutes” segment. “Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy,” she said, again attributing the number to Ms. Cosman.

To sort through all this, I called James L. Krahenbuhl, the director of the National Hansen’s Disease Program, an arm of the federal government. Leprosy in the United States is indeed largely a disease of immigrants who have come from Asia and Latin America. And the official leprosy statistics do show about 7,000 diagnosed cases — but that’s over the last 30 years, not the last three.

The peak year was 1983, when there were 456 cases. After that, reported cases dropped steadily, falling to just 76 in 2000. Last year, there were 137.

(snip)

Finally, Mr. Dobbs is fond of darkly hinting that this country is under attack. He suggested last week that the new immigration bill in Congress could be the first step toward a new nation — a “North American union” — that combines the United States, Canada and Mexico. On other occasions, his program has described a supposed Mexican plot to reclaim the Southwest. In one such report, one of his correspondents referred to a Utah visit by Vicente Fox, then Mexico’s president, as a “Mexican military incursion.”

When I asked Mr. Dobbs about this yesterday, he said, “You’ve raised this to a level that frankly I find offensive.”

(snip)

The most common complaint about him, at least from other journalists, is that his program combines factual reporting with editorializing. But I think this misses the point. Americans, as a rule, are smart enough to handle a program that mixes opinion and facts. The problem with Mr. Dobbs is that he mixes opinion and untruths. He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans.

There is no denying that this country’s immigration system is broken. But it defies belief — and a whole lot of economic research — to suggest that the problems of the middle class stem from illegal immigrants. Those immigrants, remember, are largely non-English speakers without a high school diploma. They have probably hurt the wages of native-born high school dropouts and made everyone else better off.

More to the point, if Mr. Dobbs’s arguments were really so good, don’t you think he would be able to stick to the facts? And if CNN were serious about being “the most trusted name in news,” as it claims to be, don’t you think it would be big enough to issue an actual correction? full article

I've always known that Mr. Dobbs was hyping illegal immigration problems but haven't watched enough episodes of his show to catch him scaremongering. Mainly because after the fourth show I watched I started changing the channel as soon as the words illegal immigration came out of his mouth.

Why is this my third post about irresponsible/untrue reporting in two days? It seems to be a little bit rampant as of late although Lou Dobbs did so a long while ago. But it still shows a bad trend both in the MSM and Blogs. Looks like the disease has jumped mediums.

Of Note

I ran across this recent article The Porn Myth which comes to a rather disturbing conclusion..

“For the first time in human history, the images’ power and allure have supplanted that of real naked women. Today, real naked women are just bad porn.”

check it out here

And then the blogosphere exploded

with news that Fred Thompson was finally going to run for president. Only to find out via the National Review that nobody from Thompson's crew said any such thing as the NR called and verified rather than risk publishing a rumor as fact.

See what happens when one news agency just assumes that another news agency or a blog checked its facts?

On the bright side Mr. Thompson got a free test on how much media coverage to expect when he does decide to announce he's running.

Bush Authorizes Ops Vs Iran

From ABC News:
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation
and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions. more

Many have called ABC's releasing of this information irresponsible or treasonous. I see that as a gross overreaction. It only confirms what the Iranian government believes anyway. Although they might have been surprised by the nonlethal part. And that may have have been the point of the leak.

Iraq Probes Reports of al-Masri's death

From the AP:




U.S. and Iraqi officials chased reports Tuesday that the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq was killed by rivals north of Baghdad. But U.S. authorities urged caution and warned that even if the claim were true, the death of the shadowy Abu Ayyub al-Masri would likely not spell the end of the terror movement in Iraq.




Reports of al-Masri's death first emerged from the Interior Ministry, which said the al-Qaida leader was gunned down by rivals in his movement Tuesday at a bridge near Lake Tharthar just north of Baghdad, where the U.S. military believes al-Qaida operates training camps.




Later, however, ministry spokesman Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said al-Masri's death had not been confirmed. Another senior official, Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, told The Associated Press that "we are trying to investigate and confirm the report."




Other Iraqi officials said word of the purported death came from an informant and that efforts were under way to retrieve the body. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is sensitive.




An al-Qaida front organization denied that al-Masri, an Egyptian also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer with a $1 million bounty on his head, had been killed. The Islamic State of Iraq said in a Web statement that al-Masri was "alive and still fighting the enemy of God." more




This is the second time in as many months he's been reported as having been killed. One would think that the MSM would would have been a little more hesitant to report it the second time.