Thursday, December 18, 2014

The Worst of MSNBC in 2014

Friday, December 5, 2014

Right Wing Watch's Brian Tashman Doesn't Understand Nuance, By lines, or Ted Nugent

Based on his latest article for Right Wing Watch, the self proclaimed watchdog of all things not left.

Tashman posted an article titled "Ted Nugent Under False Impression That Obama Appointed Al Sharpton 'Race Czar'" apparently to make it appear that Nugent doesn't know what he is writing about.. Tashman was referring to an article posted on the WND web site titles "I'm done laughing at Obama's insanity."

In some comments directed mainly at Al Sharpton, Nugent wrote

  •   "Are you kidding me? This guy as some kind of race relations czar? Seriously? 
Nugent is not saying Sharpton was appointed as a race czar. He was simply pointing out that it appeared he was being used as one. Which, BTW, is true. The Obama administration is using Sharpton as though he were some sort of race relation czar.

The by-line to the WND article says:

  • Exclusive: Ted Nugent hits the roof over tapping of race czar Al 'not so' Sharpton
Obviously the by-line was added by WND editors since there would be no reason for Nugent to add such a by line and speak about himself in the third person.

Tashman writes

  • Well, apparently you can make this stuff up, since “the president’s recent appointment” of Sharpton to be “some kind of race relations czar” never actually happened outside of Nugent’s fevered imagination and a handful of right-wing message boards. 
So what it makes it stranger is that Tashman even highlights the exact words ("some kind of race relations czar") but he still misses the nuance. The message Tashman got was apparently never happened outside of Tashman's fevered imagination and a handful of left-wing boards. Go figure.

UPDATE: I noticed raw Story's Travis Gettys followed Tashman's lead. As i stated "a handful of left-wing boards" are following the imaginative story. "Ted Nugent furious about made-up claim that Obama named Al Sharpton ‘race czar’"

Andrea Tantaros: "Bill De Blasio Created A Lot Of These Situations, Remember, He Hiked Up The Tax On Cigarettes"

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Joe Scarborough Slams Coverage Of Michael Brown Shooting

Robin Abcarian on Jenay Rice: She rationalizes her husband’s behavior in a manner that should send a shiver down your spine.

Robin Abcarian
“Everybody makes mistakes,” she said. “After this whole situation, you would think we lived in a country full of people who never made a mistake, who never sinned in their life.”

These are not the words of someone who understands the enormity of what her “role model” husband has done. If she had landed just so against the elevator rail, she might not even be alive to defend him today. She should keep that in mind as she tries to salvage her husband’s career. 

Complete article at Los Angeles Times

Just because traditional newsrooms are downsizing does not mean journalism is dying

Matthew Ingram at GigaOm writes:

The latest wave of buyouts has hit the New York Times newsroom, with the paper essentially paying about 100 staffers to leave, by compensating them with up to three weeks of salary for every year they were employed. NYT media writer David Carr has written about how difficult it is to watch one’s colleagues disappear in this way, and his feelings about it are likely shared by anyone who has been through a newsroom downsizing — as many journalists have by now.

There’s no question that the New York Times is probably losing some talented journalists, in an attempt to reduce its overhead costs and focus more on digital products. And it’s not just the NYT, obviously: Capital magazine put together a tally of just how many jobs have been lost from traditional newsrooms over the years, and it’s a fairly big number — almost 20,000 since 2008, or over a third of the total.

That said, however, I think we should be careful not to conflate the issue of declining staff levels in traditional newsrooms with the health of journalism overall. Just because thousands of people are no longer employed as full-time reporters or editors by a select number of mainstream news publications doesn’t mean journalism itself isn’t alive and well — and even growing.

The rest of the article HERE

Monday, December 1, 2014

Ken Timmerman Interviewed by Jamie Glazov

To Margaret Sullivan @Sulliview of the New York Times: Yes,"It" Should Have Been Left Out

Margaret Sullivan

Of course, I am referring to the the mention of the address of Ferguson officer Darren Wilson in an article published at the New York Times. 

Sullivan, the NYT Public editor, issues an op/ed today titled "Should The Times Have ‘Left It Out’ — and What, Exactly, Was ‘It’?"

She explained:

  •  "Separately, the blog post did give Mr. Wilson’s street name and the name of his town. It did not give the house number. The post also noted that he hadn’t been living there for some time.
    After some concerns were raised about the address on the marriage license, The Times took the photo off the website and attached a somewhat misleading editor’s note. It read: “An earlier version of this post included a photograph that contained information that should not have been made public. The image has been removed.”

    The wording of that editor’s note has changed, because it helped give credence to the false idea that the officer’s address was published on the marriage license. It was not. The new note reads: “An image of the marriage license originally published with this post was removed after concerns were raised over whether a home address was included on the license. In fact, the address was for a law firm’s office; the image did not show any home address.”

 There is no indication however in the original article by Bosman that the Wilsons did not live there. It only indicates 

  •  They have scarcely been seen there since Mr. Brown was killed on Aug. 9. Neighbors said that within a few days of the shooting, Officer Wilson and Officer Spradling abruptly left their home.

Sullivan used "Snopes" as a "source," which, in itself is laughable but another issue for another time. Most people were already aware that because of the threats of violence made by the Pro-Michael Brown forces in Ferguson that Wilson had left his home. So, Sullivan is simply trying to make people believe that the already embarassed NYT's simply put information in an article that was irrelevant.

But, unless the NYT's plans to scrub several articles, including Sullivan's own, the facts are as plain as day. And I mean "Facts" as in something Snopes doesn't deal in very much.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Erike Wemple on New York Times Publishing Darren Wilsons Address

Two New York Times reporters, Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson posted an article last week which included the street location of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. Wemple responds:

"In any story about newlyweds who jointly own a home, it makes sense to describe where that home is located. But the street name? Such detail adds nil news value to a scoop about a man at the center of one of the most contentious news stories of our time. Leave it out."


Entire article HERE