ReadabilityMorning Joe: Sarah Palin? Abu Ghraib? Never heard of em.
My last post yesterday talked about how the media would be ignoring Palin’s appearance in Wisconsin yesterday. Since Politico had an article on the subject I thought there might be a chance that Morning Joe would bring it up in their Politico playbook section.
They managed to play a link clip of Donald Trump hitting Mitt Romney going into it but Politico story or no not only is the Palin speech not to be found, but her appearance in Wisconsin was not even worth mentioning.
As a said media Bias is mostly made up of sins of omission, but even more amazing to me was Joe and Mika’s second omission in that same politico segment.
They talked about Democrats having confidence in Texas and the candidacy of General Ricardo Sanchez for the Senate and how he would appeal to so many groups and even included a photo.
Yet the Abu Ghraib connection that as Ed Driscoll points out was worth 32 straight NYT front page stories is not mentioned once.
Morning Joe has hit the Afghanistan War over and over again, (mostly trying to push Rolling Stone stories that have gotten no traction) yet the idea that the democrats are going to run the highest ranking general involved in Abu Ghraib is not a story? How can you tell that story and leave that out? If they’re not ashamed they ought to be but I guess they prefer to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt like so:
Journalism be damned, Democratic electoral prospects have to be protected for the good of the country.
Joe spends a lot of time dismissing bloggers on that show, now I know why. They have to, after all what would they do if their viewers knew that people like Ed Morrissey were reporting facts that they were ignoring?
Update: It’s worse than I thought. Politico mentioned the Abu Ghraib connection in their story yet they still didn’t touch it on air? Even I’m amazed.
Update 2: Instalanche, Hi all, in addition to checking out my latest radio show, find out when threats of arson are less interesting than lost puppies, why we need to drop celibacy requirement from public school teachers, and the sign that Donald Trumps attacks on Obama have been effective.
My last post yesterday talked about how the media would be ignoring Palin’s appearance in Wisconsin yesterday. Since Politico had an article on the subject I thought there might be a chance that Morning Joe would bring it up in their Politico playbook section.
They managed to play a link clip of Donald Trump hitting Mitt Romney going into it but Politico story or no not only is the Palin speech not to be found, but her appearance in Wisconsin was not even worth mentioning.
As a said media Bias is mostly made up of sins of omission, but even more amazing to me was Joe and Mika’s second omission in that same politico segment.
They talked about Democrats having confidence in Texas and the candidacy of General Ricardo Sanchez for the Senate and how he would appeal to so many groups and even included a photo.
Yet the Abu Ghraib connection that as Ed Driscoll points out was worth 32 straight NYT front page stories is not mentioned once.
Morning Joe has hit the Afghanistan War over and over again, (mostly trying to push Rolling Stone stories that have gotten no traction) yet the idea that the democrats are going to run the highest ranking general involved in Abu Ghraib is not a story? How can you tell that story and leave that out? If they’re not ashamed they ought to be but I guess they prefer to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt like so:
Journalism be damned, Democratic electoral prospects have to be protected for the good of the country.
Joe spends a lot of time dismissing bloggers on that show, now I know why. They have to, after all what would they do if their viewers knew that people like Ed Morrissey were reporting facts that they were ignoring?
Update: It’s worse than I thought. Politico mentioned the Abu Ghraib connection in their story yet they still didn’t touch it on air? Even I’m amazed.
Update 2: Instalanche, Hi all, in addition to checking out my latest radio show, find out when threats of arson are less interesting than lost puppies, why we need to drop celibacy requirement from public school teachers, and the sign that Donald Trumps attacks on Obama have been effective.
[...] Media Bias is mostly made up of sins of omission [...]
[...] the Obama administrations attack on Palin and her substantive reply. It was the network that ignored her speech in Wisconsin at the height of the protests in the state, ignored her big foreign policy speech in [...]
[...] and media Bias is mostly made up of sins of omission [...]
[...] Morning Joe: Sarah Palin? Abu Ghraib? Never heard of em. Joe spends a lot of time dismissing bloggers on that show, now I know why. They have to, after all what would they do if their viewers knew that people like Ed Morrissey were reporting facts that they were ignoring? [...]
[...] more from the original source: Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Morning Joe: Sarah Palin? Abu … Share and [...]
I agree with Ben. Increase the font size and how about dark black print against the tan background. It very hard to read.
1) Posts like this irritate people like me no end:
Embedded within every sentence is an almost buffoonish preponderance that people were genuinely outraged or upset by the Abu Ghraib prison issue. Such credulity borders on the moronic.
2) The people you are lecturing for “hypocrisy” have already eaten your lunch:
They were only harping on Abu Ghraib in order to embarrass their enemies and sway weak-willed dimwits. Now that they’re in power, little niceties like Abu Ghraib are easily dismissed, especially if it gets in the way of accumulating more power (in the form of a seat in Texas).
Lecturing a con-man about integrity while he makes off with your money only self-identifies you as the dupe you are.
3) The weak-willed dupes were not gullible. They were actually “fooled” as opposed to “taken in”. They didn’t really believe Abu Ghraib represented hell-on-earth or evil-incarnate. If it was, all the better for them. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t have cared. They criticized and focused on Abu Ghraib because it was a convenient pivot-point to turn on the US Military and the Iraq War.
Most are intelligent and successful people in real life. Many are self-described “libertarians” or even “conservatives”. But whatever they hold themselves to be, they’re also craven and cowardly and have their fingers in the air (to include the vast majority of “Conservative blogs”).
Intellectually, many of them know that Abu Ghraib wasn’t anything worse than what happens on college campuses and fraternity initiations all over the country…
But they can’t admit that. They have to continue the meme that Abu Ghraib is the defining atrocity of the century (future generations will laugh at their idiocy). To do otherwise would risk their own “exposure”. You would too if you fell for such a transparent ploy over an issue as grave as Iraq, the center of gravity in the Middle East. I couldn’t respect anyone who would turn on the troops’ mission over such a flimsy reed, could you?
Maybe Iraq veterans should forgive these pitiful cowards.
After all, they only libeled our mission and our reputations to “act principled”, curry favor and make themselves look good.
4) Lay off General Sanchez.
If you’re embarrassed to have been taken in with the “Abu Ghraib Atrocities” that doesn’t mean you have to harp on it as if you believe it.
Do what most of your ilk should do: Eat crow or be silent.
The Abu Ghraib affair was a phony scandal meant to impugn the reputations of good men – to include General Sanchez.
Bitter as he was, he may not have accorded himself well after he left. But neither would you if you knew that neophytes would give the credit for Iraq’s pacification to a media publicity stunt called “The Surge”.
General Sanchez can be criticized or heralded depending on how much you actually know about the real turning points of the Iraq War; Fallujah, Mosul, Ramadi, Tal Afar, and a host of cities and nameless strips of dirt who’s operations were concluding or well on their way long before General Petraeus had even deigned to formulate his so-called “strategy”.
Anyone else who talks about “The Surge” or “Abu Gharib Scandal” in credulous terms should keep their mouths shut.
The significance isn’t Abu Ghraib, the significance is the rotating standards of the left and progressives sudden acceptance of it.
I tend to give military people some slack, its a tough life but its the left that are showing themselves for what they are.
The subject of your article looked interesting, The link from Instapundit was a good recommendation. However your page’s dim dark blue font on a brown background is unreadable. I am not going to waste my time messing with it. Sorry, maybe next time.
Does Morning Joe matter? The Times? How many stories have they ignored only to have them blow up them later?