Yep, no bias in media...check.
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Rasmussen demonstrates that the American people overwhelmingly think there is a bias in the media.
Sorry, foxy, I'm going to call BS on your use of fair.org as a credible, objective source. I browsed through the articles, and they overwhelmingly cite conservative or GOP bias on channels like CNN, for crying out loud. One example is this article, which is ostensibly about CNN but actually is criticizing Fox.
I can't even cross reference anything similar to what the Media Research Center has. Clearly fair.org is nothing more than a left wing site, and probably not much more than an editorial one at that.
Here's a shot of page one when I did a search for CBS:
Extra!: Jackson's "Free Ride": Rather and Reality Are Polls Apart (March/April 1988)
Action Alert: CBS's 'Sicko' Spin: Americans Don't Want Single-Payer Health—Except They Do (6/25/07)
Counterspin: John Nichols on CBS-Niger story, Jeff Ruch on EPA gag order (10/1/04)
Action Alert: CBS Slants the Voucher Debate (4/5/04)
Media Beat: Rumsfeld’s Handshake Deal With Saddam: History Out of Media Bounds (12/8/05) By Norman Solomon
Action Alert: CBS Responds to FAIR on March Coverage (5/4/04)
Action Alert: The 'Great Mystery' of Iraq's WMDs?: CBS ignores evidence from its own show (2/1/08)
Action Alert: Viacom Blocking Independent Political Ads (10/18/04)
Extra!: If News From Iraq Is Bad, It's Coming From U.S. Officials (Update February 2004) By Jon Whiten
Article: "Bias" Isn't Supported—Because It's Not True (1/20/02) By Steve Rendall and Peter Hart
Action Alert: Will CBS Report Amnesty's War Crimes Charges? (6/13/00)
Extra!: CBS's Pro-Privatization Predictions (Update April 2005) By Peter Hart
Extra!: From the Top: What Are the Politics of Network Bosses? (July/August 1998) By Jim Naureckas
Extra!: Westinghouse/CBS:: The No. 1 Nuclear Company Wants the No. 3 Network (November/December 1995) By Karl Grossman
Action Alert: CBS, NBC Clean Up Bush's 'Happy' Talk (8/24/06)
Action Alert: Encourage CBS Evening News to Investigate Possible NATO War Crimes (7/2/99)
Media Advisory: Press Distorts Clark's Comments (7/2/08)
Extra!: Gender Bias in Televised Sports: Special Issue on Women, 1992 (1/1/92) By Margaret Carlisle Duncan
Extra!: Social Security Coverage: By the Numbers (May/June 1999)
Action Alert: Howard Kurtz's Imus Amnesia: Critic forgets requests to shun racist show (4/19/07)
Sorry, foxy, I'm going to call BS on your use of fair.org as a credible, objective source. I browsed through the articles, and they overwhelmingly cite conservative or GOP bias on channels like CNN, for crying out loud. One example is this article, which is ostensibly about CNN but actually is criticizing Fox.
I can't even cross reference anything similar to what the Media Research Center has. Clearly fair.org is nothing more than a left wing site, and probably not much more than an editorial one at that.
Here's a shot of page one when I did a search for CBS:
Extra!: Jackson's "Free Ride": Rather and Reality Are Polls Apart (March/April 1988)
Action Alert: CBS's 'Sicko' Spin: Americans Don't Want Single-Payer Health—Except They Do (6/25/07)
Counterspin: John Nichols on CBS-Niger story, Jeff Ruch on EPA gag order (10/1/04)
Action Alert: CBS Slants the Voucher Debate (4/5/04)
Media Beat: Rumsfeld’s Handshake Deal With Saddam: History Out of Media Bounds (12/8/05) By Norman Solomon
Action Alert: CBS Responds to FAIR on March Coverage (5/4/04)
Action Alert: The 'Great Mystery' of Iraq's WMDs?: CBS ignores evidence from its own show (2/1/08)
Action Alert: Viacom Blocking Independent Political Ads (10/18/04)
Extra!: If News From Iraq Is Bad, It's Coming From U.S. Officials (Update February 2004) By Jon Whiten
Article: "Bias" Isn't Supported—Because It's Not True (1/20/02) By Steve Rendall and Peter Hart
Action Alert: Will CBS Report Amnesty's War Crimes Charges? (6/13/00)
Extra!: CBS's Pro-Privatization Predictions (Update April 2005) By Peter Hart
Extra!: From the Top: What Are the Politics of Network Bosses? (July/August 1998) By Jim Naureckas
Extra!: Westinghouse/CBS:: The No. 1 Nuclear Company Wants the No. 3 Network (November/December 1995) By Karl Grossman
Action Alert: CBS, NBC Clean Up Bush's 'Happy' Talk (8/24/06)
Action Alert: Encourage CBS Evening News to Investigate Possible NATO War Crimes (7/2/99)
Media Advisory: Press Distorts Clark's Comments (7/2/08)
Extra!: Gender Bias in Televised Sports: Special Issue on Women, 1992 (1/1/92) By Margaret Carlisle Duncan
Extra!: Social Security Coverage: By the Numbers (May/June 1999)
Action Alert: Howard Kurtz's Imus Amnesia: Critic forgets requests to shun racist show (4/19/07)
Before I start on 'my source is more fair than your source' exactly where are the articles you listed located - are they at FAIR.org or at (and I quote directly from Media Research's center home page - they have this in their meta name descriptor in their source code, the stuff that gets displayed when you do an engine search for them - line 9 - easy to find - when you go to mediaresearch.org just go under 'view' in your toolbar and select 'page source' the html code will then appear) "Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative media watchdog group dedicated to bringing political balance to the news and entertainment media."
Well, buttercup, at least they aren't claiming to be unbiased
And I am not claiming the press is unbiased - I am claiming that is ludicrous to expect them to be anything but at this juncture.
Well, buttercup, at least they aren't claiming to be unbiased
And I am not claiming the press is unbiased - I am claiming that is ludicrous to expect them to be anything but at this juncture.
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
That paste is directly copied from fair.org's own search page. I would not be disingenuous, unlike fair.org. I note that MRC is also being up front and honest about who they are. Unlike fair.org.
Actually, I'm a little ashamed of you, dear. I thought you would more thoroughly vet a source before you used it, especially when launching lightning bolts from the Olympus of "fairness." I guess nobody's perfect.
Word to the wise: Always view anything that calls itself a "watchdog" with a jaundiced eye. Invariably it will have an agenda.
Thanks nibble knees, I just wasn't sure from your post which site had those articles - I wanted to make sure that the barbs from Mt Olympus where aimed in the right direction. I am actually rather flattered that already I have scaled the heights to 'goddess' from merely being an 'amazon' just a few days ago.
I don't have time to go to Fox's website and actually count the number of guests that have been on Mr. Hume's show. And then to break them down to party affiliation and ideals bent - sorry, I do have to occasionally find a source - often watchdog sites are the only place to find them - yes, I choose ones with a more liberal bent, just as you are drawn to ones with a more right leaning.
But, since I am now a goddess, my choices are superior, peasant, pumpkin, so, 'on your knees subject..."
I don't have time to go to Fox's website and actually count the number of guests that have been on Mr. Hume's show. And then to break them down to party affiliation and ideals bent - sorry, I do have to occasionally find a source - often watchdog sites are the only place to find them - yes, I choose ones with a more liberal bent, just as you are drawn to ones with a more right leaning.
But, since I am now a goddess, my choices are superior, peasant, pumpkin, so, 'on your knees subject..."
NYC LS8 - thank you for your request... I am quite flattered.
Yes, as an artist who's photographer friends bug her a lot about taking nudes, I have them - I am easily swayed.
However, no, sharing seems like a truly bad idea.
And, pektel, it is true, I was clueless, I appreciate the translation.
Yes, as an artist who's photographer friends bug her a lot about taking nudes, I have them - I am easily swayed.
However, no, sharing seems like a truly bad idea.
And, pektel, it is true, I was clueless, I appreciate the translation.
Ad hominem circumstantial:
Moving the goalposts:
Ad hominem circumstantial reasoning to justify moving the goalposts...
We are making the claims of liberal bias citing examples from newsbusters. You are attempting to illogically disregard newsbusters to negate our argument.
The fact that newsbusters doesn't make a claim or an argument is irrelevant to this discussion, ans simply serves as a red herring. But i think you already knew that...
reread their mission statment. They are only concerned with documenting instances of liberal bias in the media. They are not attempting to provide a cross section of all biases in the media.
Not really.
Let me modify your definition of cherry picking:
The vast majority of the information out there supports the idea that the majority of the media is liberally biased. The only way a significant portion or contradicting info can possibly be claimed to have been ignored in the conclusion of liberal bias is if you are imposing the unrealistic expectation of looking at all stories in the media. Can you say moving the goalposts?
Cherry picking is an invalid tactic because it is ultimately a hasty generalization:
There is hardly "insufficient evidence" to conclude that the MSM has a liberal bias.
Conwebwatch? A group who claims to be "watchdogging the conservative new media"? Again, by the standard you are imposing on newsbusters, Conwebwatch is an invalid and irrelevant source, but anyway...
I skimmed that article and it is rather obvious that this site is the same as media matters; a dishonest leftist smear machine.
It is misrepresenting Limbaugh's argument's by taking his quotes out of context and simply echoing the spin by Media Matter's (based on blatant out of context quotes) about Limbaugh's "phony solider" comment.
It also makes this oversimplified, fallacious comparison:
Media Matter's is accurately discribed as a "smear machine" because of it's intellecually dishonest tactics. This site is simply assuming that MRC uses the same tactics, and parroting MM's talking points.
I could go in to all the other fallacious arguments, misinformation and distortion in that article but I think my point is clear; conwebwatch is another site like Media Matters that has a demonstratable lack of intellecual integrety and is simply a smear machine. Not really a criticism of MRC that should be given any weight.
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible
Moving the goalposts:
Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar or the moving goalpost, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.
Ad hominem circumstantial reasoning to justify moving the goalposts...
newsbusters makes no claims or arguments, how can I be attempting to discredit their claim or argument? They do not make the claim that the media has a liberal bias... you do, they just collect instances of liberal bias and whine about it
We are making the claims of liberal bias citing examples from newsbusters. You are attempting to illogically disregard newsbusters to negate our argument.
The fact that newsbusters doesn't make a claim or an argument is irrelevant to this discussion, ans simply serves as a red herring. But i think you already knew that...
reread their mission statment. They are only concerned with documenting instances of liberal bias in the media. They are not attempting to provide a cross section of all biases in the media.
Not really.
Let me modify your definition of cherry picking:
Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
The vast majority of the information out there supports the idea that the majority of the media is liberally biased. The only way a significant portion or contradicting info can possibly be claimed to have been ignored in the conclusion of liberal bias is if you are imposing the unrealistic expectation of looking at all stories in the media. Can you say moving the goalposts?
Cherry picking is an invalid tactic because it is ultimately a hasty generalization:
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.
There is hardly "insufficient evidence" to conclude that the MSM has a liberal bias.
Conwebwatch? A group who claims to be "watchdogging the conservative new media"? Again, by the standard you are imposing on newsbusters, Conwebwatch is an invalid and irrelevant source, but anyway...
I skimmed that article and it is rather obvious that this site is the same as media matters; a dishonest leftist smear machine.
It is misrepresenting Limbaugh's argument's by taking his quotes out of context and simply echoing the spin by Media Matter's (based on blatant out of context quotes) about Limbaugh's "phony solider" comment.
It also makes this oversimplified, fallacious comparison:
Given Media Matters' and MRC's similar missions and opposite places on the ideological spectrum, this must mean that the MRC is a "right-wing hate group" and part of the "right-wing smear machine."
Media Matter's is accurately discribed as a "smear machine" because of it's intellecually dishonest tactics. This site is simply assuming that MRC uses the same tactics, and parroting MM's talking points.
I could go in to all the other fallacious arguments, misinformation and distortion in that article but I think my point is clear; conwebwatch is another site like Media Matters that has a demonstratable lack of intellecual integrety and is simply a smear machine. Not really a criticism of MRC that should be given any weight.
Maybe I missed something, but what I would like to know is: where is the data showing that most Americans are liberal? Limited internet searches have only found a few op-ed pieces that claim this by twisting the data. But mostly I've found that the opposite is true. As in this article. Here's the actual questionnaire results:
http://www.tarrance.com/files/BG-35-questionnaire.pdf
http://www.tarrance.com/files/BG-35-questionnaire.pdf
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
nibble knees?
:bowrofl:
:bowrofl:
ford nut
Local nut case
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Hey goober...he was talking to Shag, not me. I was just trolling.
ford nut
Local nut case
Hey goober...he was talking to Shag, not me. I was just trolling.
Doing what you do best sugar lips
aztecknight
Active LVC Member
lets be fair
You conveniently left out an important part of my thought:
So what am I saying? I am saying that an attempt to prove that the media has a liberal bias requires more than a source whose mission statement is to collect and point out instances of liberal bias in the media. I am arguing that the sample size is not fair and not representative. How could it be? I cite their mission statement to back me up here.
I thought you were against underhanded "intellecually dishonest tactics" such as "taking his quotes out of context".
I'll ask again, where do I attack the bias of the person, in this case newsbusters, in order to make their argument less credible? We agree that newsbusters.org makes no claim or argument:
Oh that's right:
Again, where do I attempt to illogically disregard newsbusters? Not really.
We both agree they aren't cherry picking:
So can we agree that I am not attacking the newsbusters or their bias.
You didn't really modify anything. You highlighted two words. Shame on you, trying to mislead others into thinking I left out a very significant portion of the definition. Here is my original post:
Again, nothing has been modified.
So if I'm not attacking newsbusters, what am I attacking? I am attacking your sample which supports your hypothesis that the media has a liberal bias. I am attacking the size and fairness. Is the word fairness what is giving you problems? Is this what your whole ad hominem argument is based on? We'll analyze it shortly.
1. Size - the msm is very large. You cite one source and a flawed study as proof.
2. Fairness - your samples are biased. Is this what you're getting hung up on? I don't mean biased in the political sense:
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.
This has nothing to do with your sample or newsbusters. As you yourself stated:
There is no bias in this sense of the term. Newsbusters does not make claims of being impartial, unprejudiced, or objective. This we can agree on.
Your sample is biased in the scientific/scholastic/statistical sense.
A biased sample is a statistical sample of a population in which some members of the population are less likely to be included than others. If the bias makes estimation of population parameters impossible, the sample is a non-probability sample.
An extreme form of biased sampling occurs when certain members of the population are totally excluded from the sample (that is, they have zero probability of being selected).
Your sample is an extreme form of a biased sample. Or did you forget:
This is a problem, why?
A biased sample causes problems because any statistic computed from that sample has the potential to be consistently erroneous. The bias can lead to an over- or under-representation of the corresponding parameter in the population.
I hope you better understand my argument now. Yours is a biased sample and relatively small.
But wait:
I think the one guilty of moving the goalposts is you. You're moving them closer.
Moving the goalpost can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features.
You claim vast majority of the information out there supports your claim of bias and in the same thought claim that it is an unrealistic expectation to look at all stories in the media. How can you claim a majority if looking at all stories is unrealistic? Have you looked at a fair sample? If you have it please share it with us.
A majority, also known as a simple majority in the U.S., is a subset of a group that is more than half of the entire group.
How can you know that the vast majority of data supports your claim if it is in your words an "unrealistic expectation of looking at all stories in the media." How do you know you have more than half of the entire group?
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.
Yes, you are guilty of this. But we can argue semantic if you'd like and discuss the meaning of 'insufficient'.
In my defense I don't claim a necessity to analyze all stories, a 'fair sample' not a 'biased sample' would suffice. As we've discussed, newsbusters provides a 'biased sample'. Again, not bias in the sense they are conservative but rather that they exclude other examples.
Again, by your standard they are very legit.
Can we say ad hominem abusive:
ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
ditto. ad hominem abusive
So to summarize:
Claim: Your claim is media has a liberal bias.
proof: Your proof cites mediabusters, UCLA study.
Flaws:
1. UCLA study is flawed, read the articles I attached that attack the methods used in study and not the those conducting the study.
2. mediabusters provides a biased sample. not biased as in they are conservative nuts, but rather statistically... see above.
3. not enough data. see biased sample. and definition of majority.
I'll see you guys tomorrow. This is fun. Keeps the mind sharp.
You conveniently left out an important part of my thought:
So what am I saying? I am saying that an attempt to prove that the media has a liberal bias requires more than a source whose mission statement is to collect and point out instances of liberal bias in the media. I am arguing that the sample size is not fair and not representative. How could it be? I cite their mission statement to back me up here.
I thought you were against underhanded "intellecually dishonest tactics" such as "taking his quotes out of context".
I'll ask again, where do I attack the bias of the person, in this case newsbusters, in order to make their argument less credible? We agree that newsbusters.org makes no claim or argument:
Oh that's right:
Again, where do I attempt to illogically disregard newsbusters? Not really.
We both agree they aren't cherry picking:
So can we agree that I am not attacking the newsbusters or their bias.
You didn't really modify anything. You highlighted two words. Shame on you, trying to mislead others into thinking I left out a very significant portion of the definition. Here is my original post:
Again, nothing has been modified.
So if I'm not attacking newsbusters, what am I attacking? I am attacking your sample which supports your hypothesis that the media has a liberal bias. I am attacking the size and fairness. Is the word fairness what is giving you problems? Is this what your whole ad hominem argument is based on? We'll analyze it shortly.
1. Size - the msm is very large. You cite one source and a flawed study as proof.
2. Fairness - your samples are biased. Is this what you're getting hung up on? I don't mean biased in the political sense:
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.
This has nothing to do with your sample or newsbusters. As you yourself stated:
There is no bias in this sense of the term. Newsbusters does not make claims of being impartial, unprejudiced, or objective. This we can agree on.
Your sample is biased in the scientific/scholastic/statistical sense.
A biased sample is a statistical sample of a population in which some members of the population are less likely to be included than others. If the bias makes estimation of population parameters impossible, the sample is a non-probability sample.
An extreme form of biased sampling occurs when certain members of the population are totally excluded from the sample (that is, they have zero probability of being selected).
Your sample is an extreme form of a biased sample. Or did you forget:
This is a problem, why?
A biased sample causes problems because any statistic computed from that sample has the potential to be consistently erroneous. The bias can lead to an over- or under-representation of the corresponding parameter in the population.
I hope you better understand my argument now. Yours is a biased sample and relatively small.
But wait:
I think the one guilty of moving the goalposts is you. You're moving them closer.
Moving the goalpost can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features.
You claim vast majority of the information out there supports your claim of bias and in the same thought claim that it is an unrealistic expectation to look at all stories in the media. How can you claim a majority if looking at all stories is unrealistic? Have you looked at a fair sample? If you have it please share it with us.
A majority, also known as a simple majority in the U.S., is a subset of a group that is more than half of the entire group.
How can you know that the vast majority of data supports your claim if it is in your words an "unrealistic expectation of looking at all stories in the media." How do you know you have more than half of the entire group?
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.
Yes, you are guilty of this. But we can argue semantic if you'd like and discuss the meaning of 'insufficient'.
In my defense I don't claim a necessity to analyze all stories, a 'fair sample' not a 'biased sample' would suffice. As we've discussed, newsbusters provides a 'biased sample'. Again, not bias in the sense they are conservative but rather that they exclude other examples.
Again, by your standard they are very legit.
Can we say ad hominem abusive:
ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
ditto. ad hominem abusive
So to summarize:
Claim: Your claim is media has a liberal bias.
proof: Your proof cites mediabusters, UCLA study.
Flaws:
1. UCLA study is flawed, read the articles I attached that attack the methods used in study and not the those conducting the study.
2. mediabusters provides a biased sample. not biased as in they are conservative nuts, but rather statistically... see above.
3. not enough data. see biased sample. and definition of majority.
I'll see you guys tomorrow. This is fun
. Keeps the mind sharp.aztecknight
Active LVC Member
What!
You guys are? Where do I signup? I typically enlightened others for free, but if you're getting paid, why not?
BTW, I'm kidding about the enlightened remark, we have differing philosophies and political views and there isn't anything wrong with that. It doesn't make you evil. We can't all be perfect. Kidding
You guys are? Where do I signup? I typically enlightened others for free, but if you're getting paid, why not?
BTW, I'm kidding about the enlightened remark, we have differing philosophies and political views and there isn't anything wrong with that. It doesn't make you evil. We can't all be perfect
. Kiddingfossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Actually it's putting me to sleep.I'll see you guys tomorrow. This is fun
aztecknight
Active LVC Member
aztecknight
Active LVC Member
you too?!?
Are you accusing me of Proof by verbosity:
Proof by verbosity is a term used to describe an excessively verbose mathematical proof that may or may not actually prove the result.
Believe it or not, I tend to be quite a terse individual. Just trying to be thorough here.
As a n00b, I don't want to disappoint.
Aztec - they don't pay by the word...
Are you accusing me of Proof by verbosity:
Proof by verbosity is a term used to describe an excessively verbose mathematical proof that may or may not actually prove the result.
Believe it or not, I tend to be quite a terse individual. Just trying to be thorough here
.As a n00b, I don't want to disappoint.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
:bowrofl: at the joke and at the ironyAztec - they don't pay by the word...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's a clear cut example of media bias
Kristol: The Washington Post Distorts Palin on Page One
Here are the headline and the first two paragraphs from an article posted online that apparently will be on the front page of Friday’s Washington Post:
Kornblut’s interpretation of what Palin said is either stupid or malicious. Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. It makes no sense for Kornblut to claim that Palin is arguing here that Saddam Hussein’s regime carried out 9/11—obviously Palin isn’t saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam’s regime. Palin isn’t linking Saddam to 9/11. She’s linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda.
People can debate how intimate that connection is, and how much of the fight in Iraq is now against al Qaeda in Iraq--but it’s simply the case that Palin is not saying what Kornblut says she is, and that the Washington Post is, right now, leading its paper with a clear distortion of what Palin said.
***
I guess smear is the new scoop.
Kristol: The Washington Post Distorts Palin on Page One
Here are the headline and the first two paragraphs from an article posted online that apparently will be on the front page of Friday’s Washington Post:
Kornblut’s interpretation of what Palin said is either stupid or malicious. Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. It makes no sense for Kornblut to claim that Palin is arguing here that Saddam Hussein’s regime carried out 9/11—obviously Palin isn’t saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam’s regime. Palin isn’t linking Saddam to 9/11. She’s linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda.
People can debate how intimate that connection is, and how much of the fight in Iraq is now against al Qaeda in Iraq--but it’s simply the case that Palin is not saying what Kornblut says she is, and that the Washington Post is, right now, leading its paper with a clear distortion of what Palin said.
***
I guess smear is the new scoop.