Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

Says Donny Deutsch on Morning Joe.

Really? I maintain that the casualty is this credibility of the NAACP who as I wrote in my examiner article was the only player in this game that actually had complete information and choose for the sake of a few hours expediency to ignore it.

The administration didn’t do so well either, although the profuse apologies help mitigate it it is a problem. That’s why they are so desperate for her to take a job. Every day she no longer works for the administration and is on camera reminds them is a day where the public is reminded who fired her.

This contrasts with Breitbart. The 22% media which never liked him is instead of ignoring him (their default position) is alternatively hitting him or talking to him on camera, giving him not only page views but allows him to make his case concerning both the media and NAACP.

Oh and the problem with Rick Moran’s argument? He ignores the actual 23 paragraph article that the videos were part of. Like many at the start I saw only the video. As the story progressed I returned to what was actually written to see the case it made. In fact not only is the story ignored but so is the second clip and the big point he was making.

But hey I could be wrong, check out Moran’s memeorandum thread to see what the others think and make up your own mind.

…who when asked himself on a matter of national interest gives such a response?

If you are in the business of asking people questions for a living I would think you should not be so shy about answering them.

Then it will push any non-fox coverage to Journolist to Friday, the news dump day.

This is a story that has the potential to destroy what little is left of the media’s credibility, the longer they can bury stuff like this:

The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. “Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. “How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin.”

Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin’s inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama’s similarly thin resume. “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” Stein asked hypothetically. “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.”

“What a joke,” added Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. “I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.”

Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin. “This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].”

I don’t think this story is something they want on the air before an election, do you?

comes from LisaInDallas.

This is why I don’t take the outrage of the left or the media seriously on the Sherrod matter.

Update: Bad quality image, replaced