On The Road

Blogspot seems to be having issues at the moment, so I don't know if this post will go through.

I'm on the road with little chance for internet access until this weekend, so no posts or updates until then.

Lack Of Real Journalism From Iraq

One of the criticisms of news via blog versus the mainstream media is the lack of "on the ground" reporting from blogs. From the Rathergate scandal, a reference was made to bloggers as "guys in pajamas" in an attempt to conjure a Monday-morning quarterback image.

For some issues, though, it doesn't seem that the mainstream media does much better. There is an interesting post on Strategy Page about the lack of imbedded reporters in Iraq. The article notes:

Most journalists are in the Green Zone, or some well-guarded hotel. There, they depend on Iraqi stringers to gather information, and take pictures for them. In reality, these reporters could do this from back home, and many more media organizations are doing just that.

Nothing new about using local stringers in dangerous areas. It's common sense, given that the bad guys are in the habit of kidnapping, or just killing, foreign reporters. The problem is, the pool of available Iraqi talent is mostly Sunni Arab. Many of these folks side with the bad guys. And all Iraqi journalists, especially those working for foreigners, are subject to intimidation, or bribery. While some of the foreign reporters may be aware of all this, some aren't, and many of the rest don't care. The truth won't set them free, but supplying stories their editors are looking for, will.

I find the lack of priority to be appalling. I was shocked to learn that there are only 9 imbedded reporters (hat tip Instapundit) currently in Iraq.

Here’s the chart (CLICK HERE TO VIEW) showing who the nine embedded reporters were covering all of Iraq on 9/19/2006. You’ll see that of those 9 reporters, 3 were from the Armed Forces’ Stars & Stripes, 1 from AFN (Armed Force Network), 1 from the Charlotte Observer, 1 from the BBC, 1 from the AP, 1 from RAI, and 1 from Polish Radio. All the rest of the “coverage” of the Iraq war on that day came from reporters hunkered down in the hotels and other locations under the rubric “Baghdad News Bureaus.”

Only one AP reporter? Almost half of the embedded reporters are from military newspapers?

The next time you read a doom-and-gloom article about how bad things are in Iraq, realize that the person writing it doesn't do so with first-hand knowledge. Is that really reporting?

Lunacy At The UN

That busy schedule is intervening, preventing me from blogging about recent happenings at the UN as much as I'd like. But I wanted to at least publish these links--because if you've been getting your news from the MSM, you probably missed some if not all of this.

First up, we have Iranian President Ahmadinejad who spoke at the UN to bemoan the influence of the United States worldwide. What you probably didn't know is that 35,000 or so people gathered to protest his speech. Read about it here (hattip Instapundit) and here. Why was this protest not covered by national media? A few thousand protest President Bush or the war in Iraq and it gets round the clock coverage on CNN. Ten times that show up outside the UN to protest Ahmadinejad and the only coverage is from a few local NY newspapers.

Next up we have Hugo Chavez's speech at the UN, where he called George Bush "the devil". I was worried that while some thought (again from Instapundit) the speech revealed some of the huge problems with the UN, others would just nod their head and agree. Sadly the White House response was considered weak by many; for and example, see The Corner via Wizbangblog.

I was glad to see that Chavez's comments were so ridiculous that Pelosi and Rangel even came to the defense of the President. This reaction from two outspoken critics of Bush revealed to me just how out of step the liberal blogosphere ala Kos and the DU are from American society. It wouldn't take much searching to find prominent liberal blogs praising Chavez's speech. While I'm sure that brings a warm fuzzy feeling to their readers, Pelosi's and Rangel's reactions show just how unmarketable that view is, politically.

The Battle For Freedom

I'll admit that the picture below is a strange place to see a sign of hope, but that's what stuck me when I saw it. The picture is from an editorial at redstate.com written yesterday (9/18/2006) but I believe the photo was actually taken back in February of this year, during the infamous cartoon riots in the Muslim world.


I think what is so telling in the photo is the use of the word freedom. Note that it isn't America or George Bush or Jews but freedom. Often times in speeches by President Bush, the war on terror is likened to a battle for freedom and for western civilization as we know it. Such analogies are just as often derided as fear mongering; the supposition being that the President is using fear to justify his agenda around the globe.

But this photo says that (at least one) of the terrorists get it--provocative thoughts such as freedom are their true enemies. And while I have my doubts as to the chances of success for any particular policy, I don't have my doubts of the pervasive nature of ideas such as liberty and freedom. If the terrorists truly mean to defeat the idea people are allowed to live free, then they have already lost.

Islamic Extremists' Rage-o-meter

The yellow-orange-red threat level of the Department of Homeland Security has been the subject of a number of jokes and parodies. I can't say that it isn't deserving of them in some cases. But a blog with the interesting name Wuzzadem has taken the parody in a different direction.


(Hattip: Michele Malkin)

I'll admit the joke at first glance just seems silly. But the truth behind it is compelling. How many different events or statements or actions have resulted in worldwide riots with people, as the joke suggests, in a murderous rage? It has gotten to the point where it doesn't even register to me anymore. Threats of beheadings in the news? Well of course there are.

What I find most frightening is the thought that some believe if we were just to leave them alone, their murderous rage would subside.

Lesson Of The Day: Don't Make Ann Althouse Angry

Ann Althouse's always thoughtful, sometimes whimsical blog took a decidedly different turn today.

Remind me never to get on her bad side. (Though I think I'm safe in this case; I agree with her completely.)

It's Election Season -- Time For The Biased Polls

Next to media bias, another issue I just can't let go is the business of biased polls. Everyone has heard the expression "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Well poll results are "politically-motivated statistics" so you can just imagine the manipulation that happens behind the scenes.

The worst polls are one's that don't reveal their internals. Such polls are completely meaningless but sadly get press all the time. In other cases, polls are published with their internals. This at least lets the poll be evaluated and examined by people who care to do such things. Again sadly it doesn't stop the quick-glance headline from giving misleading information.

As an example, take this poll by SurveyUSA concerning the Missouri Senate race between Talent and McCaskill. The poll results show the race in a statistical tie and allow the article to begin:

It continues to be one of the hottest, if not the hottest, Senate races in the country.

However, Alexander McClure of politics.wizbangblog.com takes a look at the internals of this poll and discovers that Democrats have been drastically overrepresented (at the expense of Independents for the most part). Adjust the results for percentages from 2004 exit polls and Talent is ahead 51% to 44%.

Now, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. This is just one more case where some information is worse than no information. The average person doesn't have the time nor the background in statistics to care about the internals of polls. They read "race tied" and move on. One can only imagine how that affects their behavior on election day.

CNN Won't Give Up On Plame Case

Have you been following the Plame case? If so I feel sorry for you. I tried several times to read up on it over the last--what has it been? months? years? feels like decades and I found myself too bored to really understand the details of what was being claimed and who was claiming it.

I did catch the gist of it, though. To the many in the giddy media it appeared that Karl Rove finally got caught doing something illegal and was going to be forced out of Washington. Of course, now the real person behind the leak has come forward and it wasn't Rove at all, it was Richard Armitage of the CIA. If I understand correctly, Armitage is actually a well-known opponent of Bush/Rove and thus the story has quickly fallen from the front pages of all the major media outlets.

But today I noted a CNN front-page headline that struck me as odd. The headline of the actual article is fine, "Outed CIA agent Plame adds Armitage to lawsuit." But the headline on the front page was different:


Notice that the headline (3rd from the top) doesn't mention Armitage by name. Instead we see the term 'admitted leaker'. Why? When Rove was the prime suspect we saw his name repeated ad nauseum on the front page.

This is actually something I've noticed on cnn.com for a while now. The tag line on the front page doesn't match the headline of the actual article. Just one more way to affect and change the first impression people get when glancing at the top stories of the moment. It would be interesting to study the difference between tag line and headline to see if a consistent bias could be found.

Attack On U.S. Embassy In Syria Staged?

There is now speculation that the attack on the U.S. embassy in Syria was staged. I've looked for other sources that support this claim but haven't been able to find any yet. What a story if it turns out to be true.

And if it was staged, the effort certainly accomplished one of its objectives.

Analysis Of Bush's 9/11 Anniversary Speech

Update: This old post is (for obvious reasons) popping up on Google searches today. It is now two years later. Back to blogging tomorrow. End update.

One thing I love about the blogosphere is that sometimes you plan on writing on some topic only to find someone more eloquent has already done your work for you. I was doubly pleased to find that Ann Althouse had done so not once, but twice.

The first of her post deals with an analysis of Keith Olbermann's rant against President Bush. She does a fine job ripping the poor speech writing to shreads. About the only thing I would have done differently would have been to quote Olbermann less--he doesn't deserve to have his rants receive more press. How far has Olbermann fallen? It makes me truly sad.

The second post deals with a direct analysis of President Bush's 9/11 anniversary speech. (Here we learn Olbermann's "reaction" was written before hearing the speech which makes his disdain all the more laughable.) In the end, I agree with Althouse's conclusion:

We must "work together to meet the test that history has given us." Note the passivity. I didn't choose this, history made me do it. And since it's history, you need to get in line, get serious. There's a core of that that I absolutely agree with. We're in a war, so we need to concentrate on winning, and you should only want to do the things that help. But I don't think the assertions here are going to convince anyone, and he's given his critics new material. They are going to resent and resist the demand that we perceive ourselves as caught up in a massive, historical ideological struggle.

Sadly, I think she is spot on with this analysis. The people who hate Bush have already made up their mind and either didn't listen to the speech or only listened to find ammunition for the next round of rhetoric. The people who support him might agree with what he said but be rather bored with hearing it all again.

Anti-Americanism Is Nothing New

Last night I decided to watch the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, just to see what his show would be like on the anniversary of 9/11. (For some reason I am more interested in the way that comedic entertainers such as Stewart and Leno handle the 9/11 anniversary than I am with dedicated news programs. I suppose it is because their task is harder--trying to make us laugh while at the same time being respectful.) All in all, it was a fine show. The monologue was subdued but typical, with a brief mention of 9/11 at the beginning. His now famous headlines bit was as entertaining as ever. And the choice of his three guests (James Woods, Charlie Rose, and the "singing cop" Daniel Rodriguez) was very appropriate.

One thing did catch my attention, however. While interviewing Charlie Rose, the two remembered how a French newspaper ran with the headline, "Today we are all Americans," or something similar the day after 9/11. Leno asked Rose what had happened to that feeling worldwide. Rose answered immediately, "Iraq happened."

Really?

It is such a seductive line that I fear so many accept it without thinking about it. But the truth is the feeling that "America is the problem" was commonplace worldwide long before the second Iraq war and long before 9/11.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit agrees, linking to an editorial by Anne Applebaum in the UK. Anne writes:

The dislike of America, the hatred for what it was believed to stand for – capitalism, globalisation, militarism, Zionism, Hollywood or McDonald's, depending on your point of view – was well entrenched. To put it differently, the scorn now widely felt in Britain and across Europe for America's "war on terrorism" actually preceded the "war on terrorism" itself. It was already there on September 12 and 13, right out in the open for everyone to see.

One could argue that while anti-American sentiment existed before the second Iraq war, the decision by Bush to remove Saddam Hussein from power increased that sentiment. There is of course some truth to that and the degree to which that occurred and whether the cost was worth it is a matter of interesting debate.

But for many that isn't enough. Bush wasn't just a small part of a bigger problem--he has to be the entire cause. Everything has to have been rosy and bright before he came along. It is a ridiculous assertion but all too often with Bush detractors the ridiculous is the path of choice.

9/11

While I was planning on getting back to blogging "someday", I didn't have any specific plans to do so on the five-year anniversary of 9/11. What could I add to the mountains of media that are available, both mainstream and on blogs? What more could be said?

Despite that and despite having a horribly busy schedule that should preclude checking in on all my favorite blogs to see what they had to say today, I found myself compelled to do so anyway. I could list and link them all here, but again I'm not sure what purpose that would serve.

Then I happened to check in on a blog I haven't read in a while, The Anchoress. She has a post today that links a video by John Stewart from his first Daily Show after 9/11/2001. If you do nothing else to remember today, perhaps because remembering is still too painful, try to make it through this 8 minute, 52 second clip. I was glad I did.


Remember the innocent people that died that day. This site might be slow, but each of the 2996 victims has been matched to a blogger that volunteered. You can follow the link on any individual person to learn a little more about them. Obviously that's too many links to follow, too many stories to read. And, sadly, I suppose that's the point.

Idiocy From Jesse Jackson

I haven't blogged about the Duke lacrosse team rape allegation story because such stories (and ones such as the Aruba murder case) do not really spark my interest. But recently Jesse Jackson made a statement so absurd that deserves as much public ridicule as possible.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Saturday that his Rainbow/Push Coalition will pay the college tuition for a black stripper who has made rape allegations against white members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team.

And the offer stands even if it turns out she fabricated her story.

Jackson told The Associated Press Saturday that his organization is committed to making sure the 27-year-old divorced mother of two will never again "have to stoop that low to survive."

Pathetic and ridiculous. Rape is one of the most heinous crimes--one that occurs far too frequently. Fabricating false charges of rape cannot be tolerated by society. And it most certainly should not be rewarded.

Coverage Of The Illegal Immigration Protests

On Monday, I posted about a citizen journalism experiment at Powerline blog regarding the latest round of illegal immigration protests around the country. A summary of the results can be found in a follow-up Powerline post. The whole post is very interesting, but I found the following observation worthy of specific note.

International A.N.S.W.E.R. passed out thousands of mass-produced, yellow and black signs with exactly the same message. You can see them prominently displayed in our video footage from New York. Here, though, is what I think is even more interesting. At either of the two New York Times pages linked above, you can also link to the Times' own video of the New York demonstration. Take a look at it.

Look at the sea of yellow and black, International A.N.S.W.E.R. signs. They vastly outnumber all other signs and banners. They are the dominant visual image of the New York demonstration. It is inconceivable that the Times' reporters could have failed to note the prominent role played by A.N.S.W.E.R. in running the demonstration, or the dominant role played by that group in equipping the protesters with signs. Yet the organization's role was not acknowledged by the Times, or, to my knowledge, by any other newspaper. Why? The Times' reporters were obviously aware of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s prominent involvement, and thirty seconds' worth of research would have disclosed the fact that the group is an unabashedly Communist organization. It wouldn't have taken much more than that to learn that A.N.S.W.E.R.'s National Coordinator has said that illegal immigration can be the "catalyst for a broader class struggle, even possibly a revolutionary struggle."

As Glenn would say on Instapundit, read the whole thing.

Perhaps showing again how the media is falling out of touch with the thoughts of many Americans, a Zogby poll shows that the protests have had a negative impact on the cause of illegal immigration.

Good Job Growth

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article concerning U.S. job growth. The article focuses not on the quantity but on the quality of the new jobs being created by the U.S. economy. The short summary is that the new jobs are "good jobs"--meaning they are relatively high paying and career oriented.

The author also notes that:

This good news about the breadth of job creation comes against a backdrop of labor-market anxiety that has persisted despite the economy's solid overall footing. Competition from imported goods, the threat of outsourcing services abroad, and a controversial influx of illegal laborers are just some of the forces that make many workers worried about their future.

I think you could add the ever present "bias media coverage" to the above list.

Blogs As Citizen Journalism?

Powerline blog is trying something interesting--an experiment in citizen journalism. Today another round of pro-illegal immigration demonstrations has taken place. Powerline is collecting video and photo records of these demonstrations to see if this coverage differs from mass media coverage. I would suspect that the data collected by Powerline would be biased, but likely not any more than the MSM coverage. I, for one, will be very interested to see what they collect and decide to show.

What is perhaps more interesting is the concept. Powerline is trying the experiment because one of the groups organizing the demonstrations is a Communist organization called International A.N.S.W.E.R.

Last Wednesday, there was an A.N.S.W.E.R. meeting in Washington, D.C. at which A.N.S.W.E.R.'s National Coordinator, Brian Becker, and Juan Jose Gutierrez, Director of Latino Movement USA, spoke about illegal immigration as an aspect of the socialist movement and about the upcoming demonstrations. One of tomorrow's biggest demonstrations will take place in Washington, and A.N.S.W.E.R. and other radical organizations are expected to play a prominent role.

Unfortunately for A.N.S.W.E.R., the meeting was attended by a couple of bloggers from Vital Perspective, who taped the meeting and reported on it on their site. They shared their audiotape of the proceedings with us, and we have posted a short excerpt on Power Line Video. In this excerpt, you can hear Becker wonder whether there are undercover policemen present (he forgot about bloggers), pose a tough question to his audience, and speculate about how illegal immigrants could be the "catalyst for a broader class struggle, even possibly a revolutionary struggle."

Did you hear about this on the evening news? No? Interesting.

Iraq Casualties And Perspective

I know I haven't been blogging as much as late, but I hope that this post does show why I continue to bother from time to time. Regardless of your point of view on whatever the issue of the moment is, blogs represent a new way to learn and debate. And it is a means that I find superior to being spoon-fed someone else’s opinion on the evening news.

A week or so ago, there was a post at Redstate that tried to give some perspective to the military deaths that have occurred in Iraq. Coming from a blog with such a conservative bias, I think you can imagine what direction the perspective took the raw numbers. To their credit, the post is open to comments and some of the comments offer a severe criticism of the analysis.

The post was picked up by Instapundit. Originally the post was nothing but a short link to the Redstate post. But given the readership levels of Instapundit, Glenn was soon bombarded with different points of view and updates to his original post were made.

A counter-analysis was given at the Winds of Change blog. This counter was itself countered at Belmont Club and Elements of Power.

And the above just represents where I stopped digging into this issue. Certainly the analysis is not complete. I still have open questions, specifically concerning the validity of these numbers that people are tossing around as verified fact. But one thing is perfectly clear to me. The above set of links has made me think more about this issue than hearing soldier number X died today in Iraq on the evening news.

Hillary Clinton, Immigration, and Jesus

No, you didn't read that headline wrong. Doesn't make any sense to you? I'll have to agree with that. Speaking out against a bill that would criminalize illegal immigration, Ms. Clinton had the following to say. (Hat tip Polipundit, which links to the Times version of the AP story. Since you can't read that without a silly subscription, I found the AP wire version on another site.)

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

The quote almost has me speechless, but I had to comment on it anyway. Can you imagine the storm of reactions is President Bush vowed to veto a bill because of its theoretical effects on Jesus? Is anyone else buying Ms. Clinton's sudden rebirth of spirituality?

You can find a number of strawman polls and more formal polls, testing how various potential Republican candidates would fare against Hillary Clinton in a 2008 Presidential election. The more press Clinton gets, the less likely I think it is that she will get the Democratic nomination. Will the energize portion of the Democratic base--the avid Kos followers--support a candidate who continually attempts to quote scripture, make biblical analogies and in general appear to be a person whose life is guided by a strong faith?

Time will tell, but it seems unlikely.

Washington Post Goes Red

Ben Domenech has a new editorial column at the Washington Post called Red America. The column promises to bring a conservative point of view to an otherwise liberal news paper. Michele Malkin predicted that this would cause an outcry among the more liberal minded and her prediction is already starting to come true. Read the comments from readers...the word that comes to mind is raving.

What is perhaps most shocking to me is that this is news as all. A paper hires an editorialist with opinions. Is this really noteworthy? Sadly, it's the reaction the hiring has received that has been the most worthy of note.

Mainstream Media Mistakes and Biases

Near the end of last week, the mainstream media showed its colors once again and while I can't say I was surprised, I was once again angered.

First up was the coverage of the recently declassified documents that had been captured in Iraq. Blog commentary about the coverage can be found by Malkin. Malkin writes about an ABC News analysis of the documents (available here). The recovered documents clearly suggest a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. (Remember, these are the findings of an Iraqi intelligence officer, not ABC News.)

• That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
• That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
• That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
• That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

But the editor felt compelled to add the following note to the above findings.

Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document -- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.

Interesting, isn't it, that this time documents are of "limited evidentiary value" but when memos slandering Bush were released during the election they were found to be "fake but accurate?" This is a double standard of almost indescribable proportions.

Also in the news at the end of last week was a monumental misstep by a personal favorite of mine--the New York Times. The Times has interviewed a man who claimed to be the now infamous "man in the hood" from the Abu Ghraib prison photos. It turns out that the man is a liar and not in the picture. A retraction and editor's note has been published. The most laughable part of the excuse comes from them 2nd paragraph of the editor's note.

The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi's account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib vouched for him. Human rights workers seemed to support his account. The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it.

To paraphrase the excuse: "We didn't do out job and fact check, but other's made the same mistake and the Pentagon didn't do our job for us, so isn't that OK?" Pathetic. A round of up other reactions can be found at Instapundit.

Just over a year ago, my first post posed the question, "Why Blog?" Political and news blogs provide an amazing fact-checking service for the mainstream media. And judging by the past and continuing behavior of the media, it is a service that is desperately needed.