- In Nevada, people who registered as Democrats with Lincoln Strategies — then known as Sproul and Associates — found their names absent from the voter registration rolls. [Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/29/04]

- During the 2006 midterm elections, Wal-Mart banned Lincoln Strategies for partisan voter registration efforts in Tennessee. The Republican National Committee had hired the firm. [Associated Press, 08/24/06]

- In Arizona, Lincoln Strategies employed a variety of deceptive tactics — including systematically lying about the bill — to push a ballot initiative to eviscerate the state’s clean elections law. [Salon, 10/21/04]

- Lincoln Strategies, then employed by the Republican Party, was behind efforts to place Ralph Nader on the ballot in states such as Arizona. [American Prospect, 06/25/04]

Even former Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), during a hearing on voter fraud, admitted that “the difference between ACORN and Sproul is that ACORN doesn’t throw away or change registration documents after they have been filled out.”

http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/09/clean-coal-lobbying-fraud/

I guess what Captain said in Cool Hand Luke was true: “Some men you just can’t reach.”

1 in 100 – 0dd or Norm?

Most of the mild autistic kids are just a bit weird – WHO ISN’T?
Do you know somebody who is normal and if you do – do you like him/her?
Special ed industry is just cashing in on a normal kids that needs more time to mature. Live the parents and the kids alone. Let the kids move and smile!

I read the transcript of your apperance on O’Reilly, and I would take exception to your belief that the Tea Parties are not representative of a cross-section of America…for the same reason I would take exception with someone who reported that they are. To whom would you attribute those statements? Are they your – shudder – OPINION?

Howsabout this – we go interview EVERY ONE of those Tea Party and 9/12 attendees and find out FOR SURE whether the group is a true cross-section of America? Too difficult? Sure it is. Just like it was difficult to estimate with any accuracy the size of the crowd on 9/12 in DC. (It was sure as hell bigger than “a few thousand,” though.)

What EVERYONE who reports for a living needs to understand is that FACTS are the basis of TRUTH – and that’s what we need right now as a nation. If it’s too hard to gather the facts, then someone must put forth an opinion, but make it ATTRIBUTABLE to someone – then it becomes a FACT that someone else said it! (Journalism 101.)

Don’t disparage something someone else said unless you’ve got FACTS on your side.

Other than that, great interview with BillO, and great articles!

Take Keith Olbermann – he of the, “It’s deep, and I don’t think it’s playable” (describing a home run), or, “He put the biscuit in the basket” (describing a hockey goal). He’s always been a bit snarky, but he has no real knowledge of politics other than HIS OPINION. But let’s be clear, his show is not labeled as a news show. To be fair, he was hired to give HIS OPINION on the air. But even OPINIONS should be backed up by FACTS. His one-liners on ESPN were usually backed up by statistics or play-by-play. His one-liners on MSNBC have no basis in anything except the gray matter between his ears – and it’s woefully empty of true FACTS about not only politics, but what’s happening in this nation today.

Jeff Immelt must be very happy with his puppets at 30 Rock. And now that he’s in the administration, he can tout MSNBC as “The Official Network of Barack Obama.” Talk about being in the tank…

It may be true that, compared to the media in the former USSR, our media is more conservative and more unbiased. However, that’s like comparing a rock to a piece of cotton. There really is no difference. In the USSR, the State owned the media – therefore, they owned the information. In this country, it’s not the State, but GE, CBS/Paramount, Rupert Murdoch, and Disney that own the media – therefore, Jeff Immelt, Les Moonves, Mr. Murdoch, and Robert Iger own the information. As John Mayer, in his song “Waiting For the World to Change,” so eloquently put it, “When they own the information/they can bend it all they want.”

My problem with the so-called mainstream media is the lack of FACTS in their stories. Except for breaking news, when information is flowing fast and it’s hard to keep up, the so-called journalists (on BOTH sides, Bernie) resort to opinion-mongering and “interpretation,” instead of taking a Joe Friday approach (”just the facts, ma’am”) to the news. I don’t want to hear someone else’s interpretation of the facts, or their opinion of what happened. Someone else’s opinion – a government official, a law enforcement officer, an eye-witness – okay, that’s a fact. But it’s attributable to someone else. When a reporter offers an opinion, who are they attributing it to? Themselves? Who cares what they think? They’re REPORTERS – that means, they REPORT.

When I was a news reporter, my two greatest idols were Edward R. Murrow (because he was one of the first) and Clark Kent – yes, that Clark Kent. It was not because of the fact he was secretly Superman, but because he stood for TRUTH – ironically, what “pravda” means in Russian. TRUTH means FACTS, not OPINIONS. Both liberal and conservative media would do well to remember that.

And Ellie, if no one has told you yet, or even if they have – welcome to the United States of America!

The NY Times has evidently appointed someone to watch Fox News, though, so maybe they’ll figure out that there are indeed people in the world other than liberals. Probably not, but maybe.

I try to tell them it’s not the owners that dictate the news, its the editors and reporters who do and they are part of a vast liberal culture. I work in higher education and I see the same thing on college campuses. Their culture is one of liberalism and the president of a university can vote however he wants but his professors and administrators are going to teach and promote whatever ideals they believe in and bring the speakers to campus who mirror their beliefs.

If anyone can help me win this argument, how can I tell these people who claim the corporate heads in the media are proof of no liberal bias? What will finally get into their heads that they and the rest of us are being sold a slew of propaganda by the left?

I wanted to write a paper on liberal media bias and was told by a professor “don’t do it you’ll never get hired as a professor if you do.” That is life in higher Ed and the media. The pressure to conform to liberalism. One eyed midgets is what is expected of the people in the two largest information hubs of our country.

Here’s the point I’m at: I’m sick to death of diversity, and it has no place in this discussion. It’s a false premise, which lends credence to a non-argument.

Why should any discussion take place at all regarding an assembly of people of like-mindedness? The cohesive element which drew people was the idea — the idea that govt., is out of control, the idea that health-care reform in its current framework is wrong — things like that.

What’s more important here — the diversity aspect or the elevation of an idea? Aren’t the ideas what it’s all about anyway?

I’m so sick of the lecturing and looking at the underside of everything. Instead of trying to make everyone feel guilty because there was an insufficient representation of black people, why not just celebrate an educated, passionate coalescence of concerned citizens?

This quote from Clark Hoyt, the “public editor,” is a perfect example of unchecked slant. Even from an “editor” in a story about slant!

Breaking it down.

Is Acorn controversial? yes.
Is it “long criticized”? yes.
Is it “long criticized by Republicans”? yes.

Is it “controversial” ONLY because it is “long criticized by Republicans”?
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Convicted crimes. Alleged crimes (dozens?) working their way through the legal systems in multiple states. Millions of dollars of taxpayer money and unopened books. (Louisiana AG got a court order to see their books in Louisiana finally last I heard). This means law enforcement is also accusing corruption, not just those other folks called Republicans.

This is a simple example of how slant can exist without a single falsehood being stated (I have identified dozens more in my research). Imply a singular cause and effect relationship where one is but one of many, or where one doesn’t even exist. Voila. The audience who isn’t tuned to detect the slant (which is most) infers improper meaning, repeats it to their friends and we’re off to the races (no pun intended).

Do I believe Clark Hoyt is purposefully guilty of slant (in this case)? No. I believe he’s smart enough to understand the difference. But for a combination of causes Hoyt and too many of his colleagues in the profession have evolved over time into slanters. Heck, even Bernie (who I have bucket loads of respect for) didn’t point out the slant in that part of the Hoyt quote. Did Bernie detect it? I don’t know. Perhaps Bernie elected simply to make a different point about Hoyt’s conclusion. That’s fair. I admit the “sun rising in the east” was a cute line.

Do I believe the world of journalism is guilty of allowing this slant to occur? Yes. They first and foremost hurt themselves by not policing the people in their own field. One of the consequences of them not looking after their industry has been significant numbers of the marketplace turning their back and in doing so threatening the very business model of print journalism and broadcast news.

And oddly enough, even that story is slanted masking the cause and effects in play. How thick do you like your irony? All the way, thank you very much!

p.s. You were great on the Factor last night, Bernie. Please do us all a favor and meet privately with Bill and the unnamed Fox person and try to reason with him. You’ll be doing him, Fox and all of us and the country a huge favor. Please try to follow up. Thanks