Foreign Paper Dredges up Clinton Hack to Rip Economy

The UK Telegraph has a story claiming former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers from the Clinton Administration is predicting a possible recession. I find the whole source and setup of the story quite odd. First, why does a foreign newspaper find the need to start forwarding stories about the direction of the US economy? While the liberals have been pitching and moaning about the economy since Bush took office and inherited the dot-com bust from the Clinton Administration, the fact is that the US has had a very long growth run under the Bush Administration. As certain elements of the economy materialize and are put in side by side comparisons with the Clinton years, it is becoming obvious why the liberals (no matter which country they be from) are getting nervous.

I would also note a major example of CFL (see my posts on what I call CFL here and here) where the media leaves out the answers to obvious questions. Here Larry Summers states:

"It would be far too premature to judge this crisis over," Mr Summers said. "I would say the risks of recession are now greater than they've been any time since the period in the aftermath of 9/11."

The heading of the story introduces Summers:

"Former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers..."

In addition to the Telegraph leaving out which administration Summers worked for ('telegraphing' to me that it was Clinton), they completely leap-frog over the context of the quotes. When and where did Summers make these statements? Who did he make these statements to? What was the context before he began making such dire predictions? Was he asked a question and by whom? Or was he giving a speech and to whom?

The transparent motives and poor quality in news pieces today are becoming far too common. As a firm believer in free speech, I recognize their right to spew their nonsense. However, they do not have the right to retain any credibility for objectivity and accuracy after they are done. The liberal media never tires of carting out former Clinton officials to provide apples to oranges commentary on the Bush Administration. If Hillary or another Dem gains the White House, don't hold your breath waiting for officials from the Bush Administration for comment. There will be one exception to that: they will select members Bush carried over from the Clinton years and label them as former Bush Admin officials. They never miss a trick.

CFL or Ratings Booster

MSNBC has a story describing a package the maniac gunman Cho sent them before his rampage. According to the story:

The package included an 1,800-word manifesto-like statement diatribe in which he expresses rage, resentment and a desire to get even. The material is “hard-to-follow ... disturbing, very disturbing — very angry, profanity-laced,” Capus said in an interview late Wednesday afternoon.

The material does not include any images of the shootings Monday, but it does contain vague references.

“I didn’t have to do this. I could have left. I could have fled. But no, I will no longer run. It’s not for me. For my children, for my brothers and sisters that you [molest] — I did it for them,” Cho says on one of the videos.

So they have the package, they have viewed the contents and yet this story does not answer:

"rage, resentment" - AT WHO?
"a desire to get even" - WITH WHOM?
"I will no longer run" - FROM WHOM?
"For my children, for my brothers and sisters that you [molest]" - GETTING SUSPICIOUS BUT WHO IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

The story later says:

He does not name anyone specifically, but he mentions “hedonism” and Christianity, and he talks at length about his hatred of the wealthy.

Does he really rant and rave in 23 videos and an "1800 word manifesto" without clearly identifying the source of his rage other than generically hedonists, Christians and the wealthy? Is this what I call CFL (Central Field Loss) reporting where they avoid answering the most pressing questions? The NBC Nightly News will be airing portions tonight. Perhaps they are saving the answer to these questions until then. The absence of such answers in such a large package does not seem likely. If the Nightly News does not reveal the answers, it will certainly raise my suspicions why.

Update: NBC had their story and provided exerpts from the "manifesto". Now a day later, why has not the full script been made public? NBC had it. They had no problem showing some of it. Why not release all of it? Very, very strange.

Predicted CFL Reporting on Iran Hostages

I recently posted on a media phenomenon where the reporting completely misses the part you want to know about most. I have decided to name it "CFL Reporting". CFL, an acronym for Central Field Loss is a vision problem where you only have peripheral vision and cannot see the center. It is the opposite of Tunnel Vision where you can only see the center. CFL Reporting has occurred when the topmost question the average person would want to know is completely avoided during the giving of the story. An example might be where a child was abducted and there was an eyewitness, yet the story would contain no description of the kidnapper.

During the time Iran held the 15 hostages we were all surprised to see the sailors going on camera and admitting to wrongdoing - stating that they were in Iranian waters in a confession style. The most obvious question on everybody's mind is what would it take to cause a trained hardened military person to submit to such an act? One would suspect that if an Iranian captor would approach one of the sailors and asked them politely to "confess" to being in Iranian waters and apologize on camera, that sailor would tell the captor where to go. Most would even think that if the captors were verbally harsh and made threats demanding they do this, it would be met with failure. This would lead to one of the top questions in the story: what did the Iranians do or say to convince the sailors to submit to such humiliation?

Information may be slow to come out, but when such data is available my prediction is that there will be very little focus on this critical detail if any in most stories produced by the media. I predict there will have been more reporting on the clothing and "goodie bags" provided for the sailors' return than on what spurred the "confessions". The next few days will tell if I am correct. I hope I am not, as I wish to know the answer to this puzzle.