CAN I BE OF ASSISTANCE?

Journalists Learn... Nothing, Take Two

From our favourite pathetic hack rag, the New York Times:

Bloggers often invoke these journalistic standards in criticizing the MSM

You're the one claiming to have journalistic standards, buster.

and insist on harsh punishment when they are violated.

Nope. We insist on the truth. Remember that?

The blogs that demanded Dan Rather's ouster

Which were?

accused him of old-school offenses: not sufficiently checking the facts about President Bush's National Guard service, refusing to admit and correct errors, and having undisclosed political views that shaded the journalism.

Bullshit.

There are only two possibilities: Either Rather was duped by an obvious fake, in which case he is too stupid to be on television (quite the achievement, that); or he perpetrated or was party to an obvious fake, in which case he's a lying weasel and too stupid to be on television.

Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, resigned this year after a blogmob attacked him for a reported statement at the World Economic Forum at Davos that the military had aimed at journalists in Iraq and killed 12 of them.

Yeah. I wonder why he chose to resign?

Their complaint was even more basic than in Mr. Rather's case: they were upset that Mr. Jordan said something they believed to be untrue.

Well, upset that Eason was spouting anti-American propoganda at an international convention, yes.

But what the blogs asked for was the tapes made of the convention, so that we could determine whether the reports of what Eason said were accurate. Instead, he resigned.

But Mr. Rather's and Mr. Jordan's misdeeds would most likely not have landed them in trouble in the world of bloggers, where few rules apply.

Look, bub:

One, no-one's paying us. Well, in the case of the big lefty bloggers, most of them are getting paid, but you don't have a beef with them, do you?

Two, any blogger trying to present the pathetic "Bush memos" as fact would be torn to shreds exactly the same way CBS was. Bloggers are equal opportunity piranhas.

Three, you're the ones claiming to have these lofty journalistic standards. Dickhead.

Many bloggers make little effort to check their information, and think nothing of posting a personal attack without calling the target first - or calling the target at all.

And many bloggers do check their information. And many, many journalists don't.

They rarely have procedures for running a correction.

Bullshit.

Bloggers run corrections all the time. And we don't bury them on page Q-17 either. Right there on the front page, strike out the wrong facts, add "Oops, looks like I screwed the pooch on this one, apologies to Mr Eastwood. And to the Association of Left-Handed Moose-Hunters too."

The wall between their editorial content and advertising is often nonexistent.

Eh? It's, like, fifteen pixels! Any more and it wouldn't fit on an 800x600 screen!

(Wonkette

Always bloody Wonkette with you.

a witty

Snort.

and well-read Washington blog, posts a weekly shout-out inside its editorial text to its advertisers, including partisan ones like Democrats.org.)

And?

And bloggers rarely disclose whether they are receiving money from the people or causes they write about.

And bloggers rarely do receive money from the people or causes they write about... Except on the left. But that's not what you're complaining about, is it?

Think I'm being too hard on this pathetic partisan hack? Let's look at the blogs he mentions:

Arianna Huffington's planned bloglike object
FishbowlDC
Drudge "I am not a blogger" Report
Daily "Screw 'em" Kos
Joshua Marshall
Wankette
Wankette again

Many bloggers who criticize the MSM's ethics, however, are in the anomalous position of holding themselves to lower standards, or no standards at all.

Would that be the bloggers you list above, or do you have someone else in mind? Do you have an example?

Look, bub, whether we have standards or not doesn't matter, because our readers have standards. If we bullshit our readers the way you do yours, they'll know, and they'll go somewhere else.

There are 8 million blogs on the naked Internet, and no matter what your readership may be today, you're just one of them.

That may well change. Ana Marie Cox, who edits Wonkette

Wonkette.

notes that blogs are still "a very young medium," and that "things have yet to be worked out." Before long, leading blogs could have ethics guidelines and prominently posted corrections policies.

Leading blogs - at least, the ones that have earned that place, like Instapundit and Powerline - don't need ethics guidelines and prominently posted corrections policies because they have ethics and they make corrections. Because, unlike a certain newspaper of record, their reputations are at stake with everything they write, and their reputations are their lives - as far as blogging goes.

Bloggers may need to institutionalize ethics policies to avoid charges of hypocrisy.

Sh'yeah, right.

One, bloggers aren't institutions. They're just people with a web page.

Two, you miserable hacks will accuse us of hypocrisy no matter what.

But the real reason for an ethical upgrade is that it is the right way to do journalism, online or offline.

Well, that's good to know.

So why don't you follow your own rules?

Oh, and does this mean that bloggers are journalists now? Can't have it both ways.

As blogs grow in readers and influence, bloggers should realize that if they want to reform the American media, that is going to have to include reforming themselves.

Which completely misses the point.

In the (non-crazed-lefty) blogosphere's quest to reform the media, all we have ever asked for is accurate reporting.

That's it. Tell the goddam truth. Stop distorting stories, stop the use of weasel words, stop omitting inconvenient facts that undermine your worldview. Stop pretending to be neutral and objective when, well, this.

Stop, in a word, being journalists, and go back to being reporters.

Of course, that would deprive us bloggers of the club with which we have been beating you so severely - your own words - and force us to go out and find honest work, but hey, them's the breaks.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 07:48 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 984 words, total size 7 kb.

Journalists Learn... Nothing

Associated Press, via The Age:

New York, NY
May 9, 2005 - 11:11AM

Journalists - those mainstream writers who believe rules are for other people - are fighting back against criticism that their work is unreliable, libelous or just poorly done.

Okay, they didn't write exactly that.

Meanwhile, same bat-section, same bat-paper:

John Davies, director of the company's solutions development market group, is eyeing the estimated 1.2 billion children aged 15-18 as potential notebook buyers and the world's estimated 760 million field workers, who could be in the market for a handheld device or smartphone.

1.2 billion children aged 15-18? Add to that the 4.5 billion children aged 0-14, and it's a wonder the 740 million adults left over have time to think in between changing nappies and grounding recalcitrant teenagers.

It took me nearly a minute to find out that the estimated world population of children aged 15-18 is 480 million. Data here. Of course, you have to be sufficiently awake to realise that with a global population of roughly six billion, you're not going to find one-fifth of that in a four-year age bracket.

Blogs: Fact-checking an ass near you.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 04:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.

Portrait of an Extreme Right Winger

Via Ace, an interesting test to plot your political position against British opinion.

Like most of these tests, it has two axes, one involving economics, the other in this case involving "crime and punishment, Europe, and other transnational issues".

For the latter, they say:

A person on the extreme right of this axis is likely to agree with all of the following statements:

• Prisons are too soft on criminals


• The UK should withdraw from the European Union


• Most immigrants are not beneficial to the UK


• Some crimes are so serious that the only proper punishment is the death penalty


• It's more important to punish criminals than to rehabilitate them


• The government should not give any more aid to poor countries

I regard myself as a centrist, or a little bit right of centre. On this scale, I am indeed a centrist, with 38.2% of people to my left, 26.5% to my right, and 35.3% more-or-less agreeing with me.

Fine. Most of those statements draw a "yes, but..." or "no, but..." response from me, which makes me not just a centrist but a moderate. Ewww.

On the economic scale, though, they cough up this hairball:

A person on the extreme right of this axis is likely to agree with all of the following statements:

• Britain's railways should remain in private ownership


• Rich people already pay enough tax


• I am comfortable with the way that genetic engineering is being used in the food industry


• The UK was right to go to war in Iraq


• Most people should take responsibility for saving enough for their retirement, rather than relying on the Government to pay a big enough pension to live on


• This country should try to become more like the United States of America than like France or Germany

Ble?

There are three basic policies under discussion here:

1. Socialism (points 1, 2, 5 & 6)
2. Government oversight of industry (3)
3. Intervention (4)

Now, we know for a fact that socialism destroys countries. How destructive it is depends on how much socialism you add to the political mix. A country with a healthy economy (the U.S., for example) can cope with a certain amount of socialism (Medicare, Social Security). Ratchet it up to 100% and no matter what human and material resources you start with, your country will collapse (Soviet Union).

So points 1, 2, 5 & 6 aren't questions of opinion, but questions of fact. And yet they are represented as extreme right-wing views.

Point 4, The UK was right to go to war in Iraq, is a little different. I have always supported the war in Iraq for humanitarian and geopolitical reasons, but I think the humanitarian reasons alone should suffice. But again, this is represented as an extreme right-wing view.

Point 3, on genetic engineering, is different again. Most of the European protests over GM food are ill-informed and foolish, but there are real concerns, both over GM food and over the conduct of large companies.

Anyway, my position - I agree strongly with the liberation of Iraq and that the U.K. should become more like the U.S. and less like France and Germany; and I agree moderately with the other four points - my position is significantly to the right of 96.8% of people who have taken this test. And only 0.4% are to my right.

Either that sample is way skewed, or Britain is doomed.

(Note also that they cite Oliver Kamm - Oliver Kamm! - as an extreme right-winger. Doomed, I tell you.)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:52 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

The Cost Of Being Australian

I'm an Australian through-and-through. There are few other countries in the world where I'd want to live - America, Japan, some of the "new Europe" countries like Hungary - and probably none that come before Australia. But living here comes with a cost.

Amazon U.S:

Blog : Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World
by Hugh Hewitt

Search inside this book Share your own customer images	List Price: $19.99 Price: $13.99 & Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details You Save: $6.00 (30%) Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours from Amazon.com. Sold by Amazon.com. Want it delivered Thursday, May 5? 72 used & new from $9.99 Edition: Hardcover

Angus & Robertson Australia:

Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World
Author: Hugh Hewitt

Millions of people are changing their information acquisition habits, and theWeb log, or "blog" has become a popular source. Hewitt helps readers positiontheir business or organization at the forefront of this information movement.160 pp.

	Online Price $36.95

Publisher: Nelson Books
ISBN: 078521187X
Format: Hardcover
Number of pages: 256

This title is in stock at the supplier but must be ordered from the US. Approximately 10-15 days plus delivery time

Click Here for Shipping Costs

Prices and Stock Availability may vary between www.angusrobertson.com.au and Angus & Robertson Stores. All Prices in Australian Dollars

The Aussie dollar is currently at US$0.77. That makes Blog cost US$28.45 - twice the U.S. retail price.

Hey, Jeff Bezos! You already have the amazon.com.au domain, maybe it's time to, y'now, do something with it? It's not like you have any serious competition...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 09:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 273 words, total size 5 kb.

You Nailed What To The Church Door?

Andrea Harris is filling in for the Pope, and answers a few questions.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 08:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Something Good From The CIA

The CIA have updated their World Factbook for 2005. Interesting to see the new economic figures. New Zealand's economy is steaming along at a 4.8% growth rate, for example, and Germany and Japan are both showing signs of improvement.

You can download the whole thing in one gulp here if you are so inclined, along with the editions for the years 2000 through 2004.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:15 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Queue Jumpers

We all wonder from time to time which will be the next country we* have to send our troops into to straighten out. Syria? Iran? We have hopes of some sort of revolution in both those nations, which is probably why we're holding off for now. North Korea? Great humanitarian need, but a very touchy situation. Sudan, maybe.

But it looks like someone is growing impatient:

During a state visit to China, French Premier Raffarin threw support behind a law allowing China to attack Taiwan and continued to push for a lift of the EU arms embargo.

At the outset of a three-day visit to China, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said he supported Beijing's "anti-secession" law on Taiwan, and vowed to keep pushing for an end to an EU arms embargo that could open the door for Paris to sell weapons to the Asian giant.

Hmm. Okay, if that's how you want to play it.

We'll pencil you in for the second week in August.

(via the Instadude)

* We = the axis of countries that don't suck.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Never Said I Was A Conservative

Mark Noonan, via Captain's Quarters:

Now, what do we conservatives (many of whom are highly upset right now) want? We want taxes reduced massively;

And spending too.

we want the War on Terrorism won;

I'm willing to be patient, as long as we see solid progress.

we want Social Security privatised;

Not all in one go, perhaps, but over time it should be dismantled.

we want abortion at least highly restricted if not banned outright;

Banning abortion has historically been about as effective as banning alcohol, and with similar side-effects. Banning some current practices, I can agree with.

we want prayer back in public schools;

I don't want prayer in public schools. I don't not want prayer in public schools. But I certainly don't want to see prayer mandated in public schools.

If individual students want to pray, they should be allowed to. And that's as far as it should go.

we want tort reform;

Oh yeah.

we want regulatory reform;

Always, but that's a process that will last as long as there are regulations.

we want increased nuclear power and oil drilling;

Pretty much, yes.

we want our borders secured;

Such is the right of any nation.

we want illegal immigrants deported;

Yes. There are, if not two sides, then still one-and-a-bit sides to this.

we want government spending to be heavily cut;

Yee-hah!

we want conservative judges to be approved yesterday

Conservative? I'd settle for intelligent and honest.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Strawmen Without Straw

In my previous post, I acknowledged that I was attacking strawmen, at least to some degree; I had made up some comments to represent the arguments of the Left which weren't actual literal verbatim quotes, as such.

I needn't have worried.

Little Green Footballs links to a report of a democracy protest in Spain - an anti-democracy protest.

And Glenn Reynolds links to Steve Stirling's fisking of comments at Democratic Underground - comments that are, if anything, even more extreme than the ones I made up.

My strawmen have retired with their feelings hurt.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 11:01 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

Ideological Braindeath

It's perfectly possible for two reasonable, intelligent, well-informed people to disagree. That's because people are different, and find themselves in different situations, so they have differing values. A woman with children values stability and safety, because she wants a good environment for her kids to grow up in. A young man might value opportunity more highly than stability; he is willing to take risks because he has much to gain and little to lose. The goal of society is to find a way to reach a compromise where individual needs are met as well as possible. In a healthy society each individual must give a little, but stands to gain a lot more - that's why humans have always lived in social groups.

But the fact that reasonable people can disagree does not mean that people who disagree with you are necessarily reasonable. This is borne out all too clearly by the protestations of the left against President Bush. They usually run something like this:

You say "Bush speaks of the United States' mission as ending tyranny on the planet (and he really means it!). " Yes, and we all are shuddering about the potential consequences of that intent. You mistake his simplistic worldview and duplicity for idealism and enthusiasm. He surrounds himself with "yes-men" (and women) demanding loyalty instead of working for the greater good. I thought the Reagan years were bad, these years have been Orwellian.

You make it sound that we hate Bush because of his "Forrest Gump" mentality. No, it's because his agenda and particular Orwellian vocabulary have mezmorized so many millions into this "Team America: F***, Yeah!" attitude. People in opposition to Bush's actions are perhaps reacting to the average American's disinterest in global affairs and how the U.S. government interacts with the Middle East, Russia, China, Latin America, etc etc. So when these countries/areas have issues with the US, all these sheep we call citizens do is scratch their heads and go "Waddit we do, sheez? Stupid foreign weasels, they're just jealous of my 54 in Television and yellow Hummer..."

Bush and co take advantage of this simplistic, inward looking attitude to force an immoral and power-hungry agenda, and that's where we draw the line. Maybe we should take a page from Heinlein and define citizens as those people that can look beyond their own selfish, narrow needs and consider the health of society writ large. Everyone else, you're just civilians that shouldn't vote if you can't be bothered to consider life outside your suburb.

Or this:

But you're wrong on why people hate Bush. It isn't some post-modern disbelief in idealism or freedom or democracy. It's that many people just didn't and don't think Bush was or is sincere when he talks about idealism and freedom and democracy. Remember, for many months a huge majority of America - over 90% - coalesced around Bush because of his response in Afghanistan and in zeal in fighting Al Qaeda and Islamofascism. I was one of them. But when he started talking about Iraq a lot of people said, "Iraq?" Why Iraq? Why not finish the job fighting Al Qaeda and marshalling this massive support we have around the world to stamp out Islamic terrorism where it undoubtedly exists, like in supposedly friendly regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Sure, Iraq was no friend of ours, but it never seemed to be a mortal threat. And it was when the great justifications for placing Iraq at the center of the next phase of the fight against Islamic terrorism began to fall apart - no WMD, no operational ties to Al Qaeda, just as the Administration's post-war plans turned out to be so hopelessly optimistic as to puzzle any sincere supporter of the Iraq invasion, many many good-hearted, patriotic, idealistic freedom-loving Americans started to ask, "What the hell is going on?" But instead of any recognition that some of the planning was off Bush planted his feet in the ground. His commitment to democracy seemed so much more about personal honor, political power and sheer stubbornness than a real, humane sense of the historic challenge of the mission. Liberals gave up on Bush after 9/11 not because he was an idealist, but because he clearly wasn't.

Let's review the situation from the point of view of a sane person:

The Taliban was bad. They oppressed women, supported terrorism, and gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden (who is also bad). Plus they blew up those giant Buddha statues.

President Bush got rid of them, and now Afghanistan is a democracy - with women not only voting but getting elected. This is good.

Saddam Hussein was bad. He ruled Iraq as a tyrant, ruthlessly crushing any opposition. He had people pulled off the streets to be tortured or murdered on his slightest whim; he employed men to rape his female prisoners. He also had appalling taste in art.

President Bush got rid of him, and tomorrow the Iraqis go to the polls to elect their new government. This is good.

So thanks to President Bush and America, and their allies Britain and Australia (and quite a few other countries), 50 million people are now free.

But, says the left, but, this is actually a bad thing because he is not an idealist. Without that idealism, he is forced to take on the world as it actually is, so his bringing freedom to 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq counts for nothing.

The logic of this position is difficult to untangle, but this is how it looks to me:

Axiom: America bad.
Axiom: Conservatives bad.

Postulate: Anything done by bad people is necessarily also bad.

Therefore: If President Bush speaks in idealistic terms, he must be lying.
If he frees entire countries from tyranny, it must be from base motives, and he deserves only scorn.
If people in the government support him, they are only in it for money and power.
If voters support him, they are stupid.

Against the strident opposition of the Left, America has fought two wars of liberation since 2001. The only contribution of the Left to this effort has been negative: to slow things down, to make every effort more difficult, to give hope to insurgents and terrorists.

Said Michael Moore:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

Said al-Zarqawi*:

We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it.

Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion, and that is against the rule of God.

Americans to promote this lie that is called democracy ... You have to be careful of the enemy's plots that involve applying democracy in your country and confront these plots, because they only want to do so to ... give the rejectionists the rule of Iraq. And after fighting the Baathists ... and the Sunnis, they will spread their insidious beliefs, and Baghdad and all the Sunni areas will become Shiite. Even now, the signs of infidelity and polytheism are on the rise.

Oh, people of Iraq, where is your honor? Have you accepted oppression of the crusader harlots ... and the rejectionist pigs?

For all these issues, we declared war against, and whoever helps promote this and all those candidates, as well as the voters, are also part of this, and are considered enemies of God.

This was pretty much obvious to anyone paying attention to events. The insurgency is made up of two main elements: former Ba'athist thugs seeking a return to the good old days of rape and pillage, and Islamofascists seeking to crush yet another country under their 7th century theocratic regime. Both are obviously and of necessity anti-democratic movements, because people will not vote to be oppressed.

We - America, Britain, Australia, Poland, and more - we, personified if you need that by President Bush, we are fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan to create, restore, and preserve freedom. Our enemies are fighting in the name of oppression, so long as they are the oppressors. It really isn't hard to work out.

But the Left will never give any credit to President Bush for this; he is a bad man (see axioms 1 and 2) so the war of liberation in Iraq is a bad thing.

He freed the people of Afghanistan, who are now rebuilding their country under a democratic government with universal suffrage.

Only because Halliburton wanted to build a gas pipeline!

There is no gas pipeline.

He freed the people of Iraq.

We only invaded Iraq because of the WMDs!

It was never only about WMDs.

But it was really just a lie so he could steal their oil!

The oil hasn't been stolen. Instead, enormous amounts of money have been spent to help rebuild the country.

Give him time, he'll steal it.

The elections are tomorrow.

Oppression! Forcing democracy on an unwilling people!

Back when all this mess started, I was arguing the point with some friends online. They were against the war, not trusting America's motives. I pointed out that removing the respective regimes (the Taliban, Saddam) was unquestionably good; the real question was what they were replaced with. Rather than opposing the war, they should be focusing on promoting democracy.

Needless to say, I got no takers.

And still the shrill cries arise from the swamps. Months after a successful election in Afghanistan, and with voting in Iraq just hours away, they still make their complaint. The war is bad - even if it brings peace, prosperity, and freedom to the liberated people - because President Bush is bad. If good things come from bad motives, then they are really bad things.**

The invasion of Iraq was wrong, was always wrong, was based on greed and lies, has done nothing but harm, and we should leave now. America cannot be trusted, not now, not ever, and our enemies [Remember, the ones murdering election workers?] are upstanding and noble.

50 million people are free.

But, says the Left.

No. No buts. No more fucking buts. If I wanted that, I'd read Wonkette.

Tomorrow. The election in Iraq is tomorrow.

(Moonbat quotes courtesy of The Belgravia Dispatch. The uncannily lifelike strawmen are of my own devising.)

* Yes, I am aware that Zarqawi is a Jordanian. If you want to track down an genuine Iraqi-born insurgent and find out his particular reasons for blowing up policemen and election workers, I'd be quite interested in the answers.
** The corollary, that bad results arising from good motives are really good, is too complex (and too stupid) for me to deal with right now.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 06:12 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1782 words, total size 11 kb.