There are rumors floating around that Paul Richards, a political candidate with a lot of respect from our blog, will be endorsing Jon Tester as soon as tomorrow. I am not sure if this means that Richard is dropping out, however, if true, this would be great news for the Tester campaign. Stay tuned!
May 2006
Ever wonder why politicans and their PR hacks repeat the same tired talking points over and over? It could be because the press keeps printing them, no matter if they are true or not.
This morning, the IR ran an AP article about Burns proclivity for large, lobbyist fundraisers, including one that costs a minimum of $500 per person, hosted by five lobbyists at Patton Boggs.
The Burns response?
Burns spokesman Jason Klindt declined to comment on specific fundraisers but said the campaign will continue to stockpile resources to compete with out-of-state money they project will flow to Democrats after next week’s primary."We have wide and deep support from the Yaak to Alzada and we don’t intend to let East Coast liberals buy this seat," Klindt said.
Now, that quote probably sounds even more familiar than you are used to. Why? Because on May 22, the Lee Newspapers ran a story from Mike Dennison that found that 83% of Burns’ money actually came from non-Montanans and PACs. Not too many PACs in Alzada. Jason Klindt’s response then? About the same as always.
"Conrad has as much money from within Montana and more donors (in Montana) than all his opponents combined," Klindt said. "We have wide and deep support, from the Yaak to Alzada."
Three things come to mind.
- First, when someone repeats the same thing over and over again, it’s not ‘news’ for your ‘news’paper anymore. Don’t print it.
- When a spokesperson refuses to comment on the specifics of a story, why do they get a free pass to make a demonstrably false claim unrelated to the issue of the story? Don’t print it.
- When a spokesperson’s PR spin is not true, and your own reporting shows it, don’r print it…or call them on the lie.
I’m not sure when the role of the media switched from informing the public to providing a platform for false, partisan spin, but maybe it’s time to switch back. Demand accountability from politicians, and truthfulness: if the media won’t do that, then what’s the point of reading, other than writing ranting blog posts?
Despite the claims of industry and the illusion of debate in the popular media, the facts are clear: human activity is contributing to global warming, and in a significant way.
Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed articles about global warming, published between 1993-2003, and found that not one disagreed with the consensus position that humans bear responsibility for climate change. Not one.
From the article:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
And, if you haven’t seen the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s ad about CO2, go check it out. It is one of the most unintentionally funny things I have seen in a long time.
Every now and then, I like to take a peek at some of the right wing blogs to see what kind of insightful observations they have about the world. Today, in addition to reading about Touchstone’s futile attempt to discuss an issue with the Rushbots of Montana, I happened to come across this gem, linked from Michelle Malkin’s hate site.
Discussing an article in The Olympian about anti anti-war protest criticizing the deployment of military equipment bound for Iraq, some thoughtful members and posters of rightwing blogs offered these thoughts:
It’s time to realize that there is a difference between protest and sedition.
Too bad the cops only had Pepper Spray – it looks like a couple of those smelly hippies could have used a good shampoo – wood shampoo that is…
That is a sure sign of retardation since anyone who works and pays taxes knows their ‘federal’ tax load has been reduced by massive amounts. Not true in the states that are ran by the criminal party of moonbats
Blocking a convoy that’s trying to protect my freedom is not protesting, it’s treason.
Why did the convoys stop? Those vehicles can climb rocks; A few squishy bodies are no trouble.
I also like the idea of the protestors burning themselves like Vietnamese monks. I’ll bring the marshmellows.
I know I discuss this issue periodically, but at what point do we start to worry about these people and the things they say? I know they are largely disaffected angry cowards sitting behind their keyboards smugly downloading copies of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, but in this political climate, they have a voice; they’re not marginalized as they should be. The convergence of one party rule, manufactured fear, angry, disaffected middle class whites, and a potential economic crisis brought on by excessive borrowing doesn’t exactly have much of a track record historically.
Yeah, that is what I am talking about.
Not satisifed with the fawning coverage offered by much of the mainstream media and the illusion of popular support created by free speech zones and right wing radio, the Bush Administration has decided on a more direct approach to managing the news: creating their own. And, no, I don’t mean Faux.
The UK Independent reports that:
Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies’ products.
While many of the fake news reports are from corporations trying to sell you something (the one for Trend Micro is pretty impressive), at least 20 federal agencies have produced one or more of these Video News Releases (VNRS), which are often run without attribution. This is sounding more and more like Faux, I know, but at least viewers there know they are receiving direct propaganda from the government. It is something else entirely for home viewer watching her local news to be tricked by reports that are nothing more than government spin. What kind of spin? Things like this:
one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department
Craig Aaron, a spokesperson for Free Press perhaps summarizes what’s at stake best:
"Essentially it’s corporate advertising or propaganda masquerading as news," he said. "The public obviously expects their news reports are going to be based on real reporting and real information. If they are watching an advertisement for a company or a government policy, they need to be told."
What’s next from these people?
