Desperate and Pathetic Libs Try to Dig Out of Bad PR Hole With False Accusations

The recent disintegration of the Left's Iraq momentum and their nearly daily blunder and misstep is creating a level of desperation among their members and their friends in the MSM. It seems as they see control slipping from their grasp, they are trying anything and everything to regain control. Right now they need a big scandal on the Right to happen. They need some conservative with large influence to create a wave of controversy to turn the tide. They are so pathetic and desperate they are willing to manufacture it.

The ultra-left website Media Matters has selected two high profile targets and done just that - attempted to manufacture a scandal. They have run two accusations: one against Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Their laughable charges are that O'Reilly made racist remarks during an interview with Juan Williams who is black and denies any racism; and that Limbaugh made disparaging remarks against troops who disagree with the war by calling them phony.

Saturday I spent 30 minutes of my valuable time listening to the entire segment in question from Bill O'Reilly's radio show. I also heard the segment from Limbaugh's show and read the transcript as well. Any objective person would see that Media Matters has completely taken these statements out of context to manufacture an issue. When listening to or reading the entire segments, there is not even a shred of a gray area that remotely resembles the accusations. It is nearly the equivalent of taking...a...broad...conversation...or...commentary...
and...using...words...minutes...apart...and...adding...them...together...to...come...up...with...
something...entirely...different...than...what...was...said...like...a...killer's...letter...to...police...
using...clipped...words...from...a...newspaper.

Ok, we would expect Media Matters to pull such a prank. However, when the MSM becomes willing to throw away their credibility by running with the stories completely out of context we see the desperation in their camp as well. Rest assured, these blunders will backfire in the same way that the David Shuster attempted "gotcha" blew up in his face. The MSM continues in their agenda driven journalism to be unconcerned about who they cosy up to: be it leaders of states sympathetic to terrorists, groups firing rockets at innocent Israeli civilians, or sham artists like Media Matters and MoveOn.Oink. It is becoming a soap opera with the title, "As the credibility falls."

Why Does the Media Ignore What You Want to Read

I have mentioned before that one (of many of course) of my pet peeves of the media is when they write a story that completely skips over the most obvious point that you want to know. I'm going to have to come up with a name for this phenomenon.

There is a story about how Rudi Guliani is telling the media to back off of his wife. According to WCBSTV.com:

The former New York City mayor is fending off increased media scrutiny of his third wife -- the former Judith Nathan. Rudy is now asking the media to back off.

"Attack me all you want," Giuliani said. "There's plenty to attack me about. Please do it. But maybe, you know, show a little decency."

Ok, now what is the first thing you want to know after reading that assuming this is the first you have read on the subject? If you are like me you want to know what the media is saying about his wife to get Rudi's feathers all ruffled. However, the story is virtually silent on the subject. The entire offering on the subject is in the quote above: "increased media scrutiny". Is it laziness? Is it a total disconnect from what details are critical to the story? This is a harmless example, but often the topic is much more important and they just breeze over the key element.

As for Rudi, the story points out that this request is odd because he recently "...suggested he might invite his wife into cabinet meetings." I don't know about you but that gives me the creeps. It reminds my of then First Lady Hillary Clinton stating, "We are the president". Another unconfirmed, unelected cabinet member is not what we need.

Anyway, we can only hope the media will do its job in this and other areas.

Media Curiosity Limited to Conservatives?

Ever notice that the media will probe in an area that has no known basis or proof when it comes to a conservative. Yet for liberals it takes a video and 100 witnesses before they will even consider probing. Fishing for dirt on conservatives is a daily exercise while deflecting dirt on the liberals is given equal effort. I don't have a link, but nobody seems to be pursuing the ACLU bigwig that was arrested for child pornography including videos of children being raped. The media response so far? Crickets chirping. That does not even take curiosity. Just a police report.

The probing question of curiosity that I have (which is admittedly fishing) has to do with the recent news that Bill Clinton's speech career since leaving office has brought in $40 million. Now I am all for legal ways of making money and speech making is usually honorable and above board. However, Bill has the distinction of having a wife who is a U.S. Senator. Where a bribe taking is illegal and there are limits to campaign contributions; there is no limit to the money a non-official can make giving speeches. So if there ever was an easy way to get money to Hillary in return for favors, it would be by hiring Bill to give a speech; paying his high fees without blinking. I have no evidence this is what is happening. However, isn't $40 Million enough to perk the curiosity of the media to investigate just who is booking and paying for these speeches? If he is speaking at a University, how many times is a school "donor" footing the bill? Is anyone asked why they are willing to pay so much for a simple speech? While Bill can give a charismatic interview or stump speech, I have never found his formal speeches to be all that inspiring or interesting.

It is always amazing how lucritive the careers of Senatorial spouses can be. Bill Clinton's success should peak some curiosity shouldn't it? So far all I am seeing is yawns.