The way CNN views Harper

Apparently CNN sees Harper for what he is. As Jeff says, Canada's back baby! (Click to enlarge)

How it is and how it should be

A few posts ago over at The Woodshed (also posted here last week), commenter RossK aka the Gazeteer asked how good journalists stop the swiftboating of candidates.
It isn't just a matter of the work of a single journalist, in fact what passes for journalistic ethics can sometime perpetuate inaccurate information in the name of providing balance, reporting such stories as groups lying about John Kerry's war record or making spurious accusations about Obama's property dealings as a sort of "he said/she said" story in which no conclusion is drawn as the truth of the allegations or the credibility of the source.
This sort of reporting is, not to put too fine a point on it, horseshit. Only a buffoon or a Nazi propagandist would report a story dealing with say, Holocaust denial, by saying "Well, David Irving says the Holocaust never happened, but almost every other historian in the world says it did, so who knows what really happened?" and yet this is the way the original swiftboat accusations were reported. Even after the claims of the paid political group were thoroughly debunked they kept being repeated in the media. Proper reporting examines the souces and what they say instead of just parroting the content of the press release.

Thus, we present these examples:

The way it is done

Alcatraz O'Houlihan (perky young female CNN anchor of indeterminate ethnicity): Disturbing accusations are surfacing about Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama today. Wulf Blitzkrieg has more. Wulf?
Wulf Blitzkrieg (steely-eyed, jut-jawed CNN reporter) Alcatraz, I'm here in Chicago speaking with Jon Galt, whose community group will soon be airing some public service announcements on television across the country that make some disturbing accusations about Barrack Obama. Jon, I understand that your Chicago-based group of concerned citizens claims that Obama once sold crack to children, is that right
"Jon Galt" (a well-groom, middle-aged white man in a nice brown suit) That's absolutely right Wulf. As you know "Barry" Hussien Obama brags in his book a that he smoked pot as a teenager. But if you thought that was disturbing, I'm here to tell you that he used to sell crack to schoolkids while disguised as a nun.
Wulf: That is indeed a disturbing accusation, that Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dressed as nun. Did you witness this yourself?
"Galt":Not exactly Wulf, but a member of our group - Chicagoans Organized Can Knowingly Sink Unethical Candidates with Knowledge Everytime, Regardless - heard it from a friend who knows the guy who cuts Obama's dogs' hair, so obviously the fact that Hussien Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dress as a nun is indisputable. And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his criminiality.
Wulf: Well, that looks like pretty solid evidence to me, Mr. Galt, thank the good Lord for public watchdog groups like yours. There you have it Alcatraz, this group of citizens want people to know that Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dressed as a nun. It's pretty disturbing stuff.
Alcatraz: It certainly is Wulf. Has Obama's campaign responded to the news that he used to sell crack to schoolkids while dressed as a nun?
Wulf: Well, they said it was beneath comment, so obviously they are running scared about this relevation that Hussien Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dressed as a nun. In a related story, Bill O'Donahue of the Catholic Defensiveness League told CNN that if some pervert like Obama were to dress up as a nun to do something as evil as selling crack to schoolkid, it would be pretty bad and should disqualify them from being president.
Alcatraz: Well Wulf I'm sure we can count on you to keep us posted on these and other disturbing allegations about Obama's blasphemous cross-dressing and drug dealing. And now, back to our top story -- Seamus Sanchez, what is the latest in the Paris Hilton crisis? Does it look like her Chihuahua will survive?

The way it should be done

Greg Palast (Champion investigative reporter and new anchor of CNN after the company is bought by Al Gore and George Soros and set up as an independent non-profit foundation run by its staff-elected editorial board): Well, thanks for that story on the latest fundementalist church sex scandal, Anderson. Now, finally, before we go to sports, we have a sort of an odd story from Rev. Paperboy about a group of political activists making accusations about Presidental candidate Barack Obama.
Rev.Paperboy (Svelte, steely-eyed bon vivant, rancouteur and champion of truth, justice and good jazz): Well Greg, I'm here with a man who goes by the name "Jon Galt" who claims to have some disturbing information about Barak Obama. What is it your group is claiming Mr. "Galt"?
"Jon Galt" (a well-groomed, middle-aged white man in a nice brown suit): Well, sir, our group has it on good authority that Hussien Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dressed as a nun.
Rev. (beginning smile broadly) Oh, really? That's a pretty serious allegation Mr. "Galt". Can you back it up?
"Galt":Absolutely! A member of our group - Chicagoans Organized Can Knowingly Sink Unethical Candidates with Knowledge Everytime, Regardless - heard it from a friend who knows the guy who cuts Obama's dogs' hair, so obviously the fact that Hussien Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dress as a nun is...
Rev.: Total bullshit.
"Galt": I beg your pardon?
Rev.: C'mon, Mr. "Galt", this is obviously a trumped up charge put together by a bunch of partisan political character assassins organized by the Republican party, isn't it?
"Galt": But he sold crack! to schoolkids! I don't even know any republicans! He dressed up like a nun!
Rev.: Gimme a break, this isn't even your real hair. (yanks toupee off of "Galt's head) Your name isn't Jon Galt, you're Jeff Gannon aka Jim Guckert, the prostitute and right-wing shill that infiltrated the White House press corps a few years ago aren't you?
Gannon: Well, yes, that's true. But I'm outraged by this left-wing bias in the mainstream media! We are a group of concerned citizens with no ties to any political party that...
Rev.: Zip it, Rent Boy. Your "Chicagoans Organized Can Knowingly Sink Unethical Candidates with Knowledge Everytime, Regardless" is a tax-exempt 527 group set up by another group funded by the Republican party. Its memebership rolls consist entirely of the interns at the Heritage Institute and the board of directors includes Karl Rove and James Baker's personal assistants and Grover Nordquist's 102-year-old mother.
Gannon: That's outrageous! We are not! You can't prove that, we burned all the rec...
Rev.: (produces sheaf of singed papers) Nice try, Jimmy-Jeff. This is your membership roll, minutes of your board of directors' meetings and collection of cheque stubs from Ann Coulter, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaife and a group called "Republican Activists To Fight Undesirable Candidates with Knavery" -- we got them from your janitor. You really should have been nicer to Juan, before asking him to destroy evidence.
Gannon: But, but, but...aw crap! Okay, its a fair cop.
Rev.: And there you have it, Greg: Yet another inept attempt by the Republicans to smear the Democratic candidate. Back to you.
Palast: Jesus jumping Christ on a pogo stick Rev., how dumb do these prick think the American people are? It makes me sick some days. Now, on a brighter note, in our top story the World Court in the Hague has confirmed that they will waive their prohibition on the death sentence for the war crimes trial of Donald Rumsfeld...

Another death; another TASER shot; and a note to CNN

Dear CNN: (Note the very professional colon)

Thanks for the link. (I'm sure it has expired by now). No, we are not the Best Canadian Blog. You're thinking of a recipe blog that also deals with airbrush art, baking gopher guts cookies and pisses their pants at the sight of anyone who has more than a Saskatoon suntan.

We, like other blogs in our little community, just write a lot of stuff. We try to be accurate, although, because we're a blog (and not a news outlet) our personal biases are not only permissible, but expected.

Which brings me to this in your 18 November 2007 report (which will be duly repeated and linked to for our readers after the break).

In reference to the death of Mr. Robert Dziekanski, you said this:

Last week, an airport security officer in Vancouver International Airport in Canada used a Taser device on a distraught 40-year-old man on his first airplane trip outside Poland. He died.

No. Despite the fact you have the "died" part right, you have made a few serious errors.

It didn't happen last week. The incident actually occurred on October 14th, 2007. Last week was when you first saw the video tape of the incident. It might have been worth noting in your report that the rightful owner of the video tape had to threaten legal action to get his tape back from the authorities. They wanted to keep it. So, it was a month after the event that you finally saw the incident on your screens.

It was not an airport security officer who shot the TASER. It was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who attended with three other members from the Richmond, British Columbia RCMP detachment - that city's police force. There is a considerable difference.

You then went on to quote the same press release from TASER International which I commented on here. In doing that, you gave TASER International the final word on their product without so much as a cursory fact check. It took me less than two minutes on an internet search to come up with information which not only contradicted the contents of that press release, but came up with other information which proves TASER International knows their weapon can cause death.

Do you pay your reporters? I mean, like, cash money?

So, I'm going to quote and link to your story, but I am going to attach a caveat: the accuracy, because of the source, may be in question.

-----------

Another TASER shot; Another Death

CNN is reporting that another man has died in police custody and that a TASER was used to subdue him.

A 20-year-old man died Sunday after being shot with a Taser device during a scuffle with a sheriff's deputy in Maryland, a spokeswoman for the Frederick County Sheriff's Office said. Amnesty International blames dozens of deaths on police use of stun guns.

Cpl. Jennifer Bailey said deputies responding to a report of a fight in progress arrived at the location in Frederick, Maryland, just before 5 a.m. ET and found four people fighting.

A deputy used a Taser device on one of the men, who fell unconscious, Bailey said.

The man was taken to Frederick Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. His identity was not immediately released, pending the notification of his family.

That's not enough information to form the basis for much, however, the way the report was written by CNN, quoting TASER International, the man was probably suffering, (in the middle of a brawl), from "Excited Delirium" (a condition not acknowledged by medical professionals) and was going to die anyway.

Bend your mathematical mind around this

My daily romp through Hairy Fish Nuts eventually led me to this. (Emphasis mine)

Two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war in Iraq, but the number who say that things are getting worse in that country has dropped 15 points since June, according to a new CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll out Friday morning.
Close to 65 percent of those questioned oppose the war, up slightly from the last time we polled in September. Meanwhile, 34 percent favor the Iraq conflict, which is the exact same as last month.
Only a quarter say the situation in Iraq is improving and two-thirds say things are going badly for the U.S. in the country — but the poll suggests that the public mood on the war is slightly better than it was in June.

Yes, well, that's true, sort of.

A closer read of the first sentence is actually a better gauge. Fewer people think the war in Iraq is getting worse. More people actually oppose US military involvement in Iraq and there is no increase in the number who are in favour of the current US action.

So, CNN reports that the mood on the Iraq war is better because, even though opposition is growing, there aren't as many people forecasting a total disaster.

Disraeli was right.

Blitzer's moment of national self-awareness

I had an afternoon of listening to various offerings on satellite radio today. In an act of self-immolation, I ended up listening to Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room and his take on the speech at the UN by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I have no use whatsoever for Ahmadinejad. Would that he could be completely ignored. However, what makes him dangerous is that he is being faced down by an utter moron. Bush vs. Ahmadinejad is a battle of two idiots, both without the mental awareness of anything beyond their own egos.

Ahmadinejad's speech was nothing out of the ordinary for him. It was the usual rhetorical garbage. What did catch my attention, however, was Blitzer and his immediate reaction to Ahmadinejad's words.

Ahmadinejad:

"Unfortunately human rights are being extensively violated by certain powers, especially by those who pretend to be their exclusive advocates.

"Setting up secret prisons, abducting persons, trials and secret punishments without any regard to due process, extensive tapping of telephone conversations intercepting private mail... have become commonplace and prevalent."

Blitzer:

"So the president of Iran speaking now for about 38 minutes, just under 40 minutes before the United Nations general assembly, lashing out at the United States, albeit with some diplomatic code words, but making it clear he considers the United States a bullying power on a path of arrogance with obedience to Satan."

Umm. The nasty little prick (Ahmadinejad) didn't mention the United States directly. The translation came out as "certain countries".

So, I wonder what code words Blitzer recognized from the above Ahmadinejad quote as being those which defined the United States?

What happens when you put a shark in a goldfish bowl?

After Focus on the Family criticized Mary Cheney, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked "The Dick" to comment on it. What followed wasn't pretty...

Q We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter Mary, she's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby. You're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting, for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family:

"Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father, doesn't mean it's best for the child."

Do you want to respond to that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I don't.

Q She's obviously a good daughter --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf, and obviously think the world of both of my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.

Q I think all of us appreciate --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think you're out of -- I think you're out of line with that question.

Q -- your daughter. We like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very, very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up and it's a responsible, fair question.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I just fundamentally disagree with your perspective.

Q I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.

Blitzer immediately went into "begging for mercy" mode. After all, it isn't like Cheney hasn't shot better friends in the face.

A shark in the goldfish bowl. Feed with caution and never turn your back.

Update: The original You Tube clip has been removed... so the transcript will have to do.