Canadians want Fox News Now!

Lola wrote:

And McG, tell us why you chose your avie. What attracted your attention to it? It's just really a nice photo with pretty hands and you're a computer threadster and it symbolizes your commitment to the liberation of women and you love red nail polish and you just thought it cute or what?

I chose it because I liked it. Isn't that why everyone chooses the avatar they use?

Tico

Your posts on this subject and your notions of what constitutes journalism, and objectivity, and the role of a free press, and the proper operations of a government regarding a free press, go a long ways towards making sense of what you read and paste here in a2k.

Are there any standards you, or fox, might maintain above partisan alignment? We have now, courtesy of the administration you consistently laud to a point near worship, the institutionalization of torture, unprecedented budget deficits, deceit and secrecy as prime operational policies (why didn't Rice and Gonzales simply take the fifth?), the utter and total refusal to ever hold themselves accountable for anything gone awry, the boosterism of war and the whoring of the military for marketing purposes, and the covert payment to 'media figures' to forward state-sanctioned viewpoints (propaganda).

Congratulations on your unyielding support for such noble values.

And McG, tell us why you chose your avie.

If you're a literal minded, concrete thinker........yes. But it's a little like answering a question with "because." "Because is not an answer to anything, it's a preposition. But now that I think about it, it may be the best answer you can give. Silly McG.

I'll comment on Coombs et al here when I see some direct quotes in context rather than paraphrases by somebody obviously with an agenda out to smear somebody they don't like.

I'll comment on Coombs et al here when I see some direct quotes in context rather than paraphrases by somebody obviously with an agenda out to smear somebody they don't like.

Just this February, [Washington] Times officials had to apologize to a Jewish group for publishing one anti-Semitic ad for a book called For Fear of the Jews. What they didn't say was that they had published similar ads nine other times in a single month last fall, plus another from a key Holocaust denial outfit. [..]

Most of Marian Coombs' especially inflammatory writings have appeared in white supremacist venues such as The Occidental Quarterly, which ran her glowing review of a book on "racially conscious" whites by Robert S. Griffin, a member of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. But the Times has published its share. [..]

In at least two Times pieces, Coombs cites Nick Griffin, head of the British National Party (BNP), as an authority on Muslim culture. In fact, eight paragraphs of one short story are quotations from Griffin. What Coombs forgets to mention is that the BNP is a whites-only extremist party whose leader has been convicted in England of race-hate crimes.

Elsewhere, she is more candid. In Chronicles, a key far-right publication, Coombs expanded on some of her ideas on race in an article bitterly condemning globalization. Healthy cultures, she suggested, will "proudly prefer [their] own people." Such a people will, among other things, "revel in the unrivaled beauty of [their] characteristic complexion, hair texture, eye color and head shape." [..]

Started in 2002, the [Occidental Quarterly] is published by William H. Regnery II of the famous publishing family. Regnery said he started it because "conservatives have simply become indistinguishable from progressives on issues of race and ethnicity." The magazine is dedicated to the study of "racial character," and its first issue called for dividing America into racial mini-states.

Coombs would not respond to any questions about his wife's frequent articles for the magazine. [..]

Robert Stacy McCain, a key Washington Times editor [..] has suggested that "perfectly rational people" react with "altogether natural revulsion" to interracial marriage. [..]

McCain, whose articles run under headlines like "Backlash Building in White America," still works at The Washington Times. Under the direction of Fran Coombs and national editor Ken Hanner, in fact, McCain puts together the paper's page-two "Culture Briefs" section. In that section, McCain has used excerpts from racist venues including American Renaissance magazine and the VDARE website.

(For her part, Coombs has written articles for VDARE and once wrote to American Renaissance: "Whites do not like crowded societies, and Americans would not have to live in crowds if our government kept out Third-World invaders.")

In fact, McCain may be the only mainstream newspaper reporter to have covered four American Renaissance conferences. Twice, he offered no description of the group, which is devoted to race science. Once, he said it was "critical of liberal positions on race and immigration." Only in 2004 did he note that some viewed it as racist. [..]

The Washington Times For Fear of the Jews.

On Dec. 6, it went one better, publishing an ad for the Institute for Historical Review, a leading anti-Semitic hate group that specializes in denying the World War II Holocaust.

Started in 2002, the [Occidental Quarterly] is published by William H. Regnery II of the famous publishing family. Regnery said he started it because "conservatives have simply become indistinguishable from progressives on issues of race and ethnicity." The magazine is dedicated to the study of "racial character," and its first issue called for dividing America into racial mini-states.

On August 30, The New York Times revealed that syndicated columnist and CNN Crossfire co-host Robert Novak -- whom the Times called one of the "stoutest defenders of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" -- has a conflict of interest in writing and speaking about the book: His son, Alex Novak, is director of marketing for its publisher, Regnery Publishing, Inc. But that isn't the only connection between Novak and Regnery -- there are other connections Novak has not disclosed while discussing the publishing house and its books.

Cheap Shot
June 30, 2004
Washington Times Takes It a Slur Too Far

The Washington Times is owned by fringe religious leader Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who, in addition to having been saluted by members of Congress, has spoken rapturously of the mass extinction of gays and called on Jews to apologize for killing Jesus. Despite all that, Moon's newspaper has from its start in 1982 earnestly aspired to journalistic respectability. Though the Times' political coverage is routinely and transparently slanted, the newspaper does do a decent job with non-political news, and its editorial page, while relentlessly conservative, isn't any more over-the-top than that of the generally well-respected Wall Street Journal. In short, despite its ownership and its partisan tint, the paper could make a legitimate argument for being included in a list of voices to be taken seriously.

Right up until today.

The Times officially jumped the shark this morning, running one of the most repugnant and ugly pieces of commentary we've seen any place other than a men's room wall. In an op-ed, Jack Wheeler, publisher of a website billed as "the oasis for rational conservatives," compares women readers waiting in line all over the country to get their copy of Bill Clinton's autobiography signed to "prostitutes waiting for their abusive pimp"; he takes a swipe at "Hanoi John" Kerry as someone who "looks like a cross between Herman Munster and Gomer Pyle"; and he asserts that, as part of a deal with her husband, "bisexual" Hillary Clinton gets to fool around with women, as well as "the occasional man like Vince Foster."

We hesitate to even call anyone's attention to this rabid hackery, but when it appears in print in a publication that aspires to be considered a legitimate part of the national conversation it's hard to ignore. So, while we shouldn't have to say this, we will anyway: Ad hominem attacks, rumor-mongering, and character assassination qualify neither as political discourse nor as satire. The Times may be trying to march fitfully toward respectability, but it just found its way into a very deep ditch. And the more pieces it runs like this, the harder it's going to be to get out.

--Brian Montopoli

The Unification Church has bankrolled huge losses at the Times, which several sources estimated have totaled more than $1 billion over the past 22 years. The paper's losses are running about $20 million annually, one source said; another source offered a slightly higher estimate. Insiders said that Japanese backers of the church had been especially unhappy with the Times's huge losses and with its right-wing positions on global political issues.

And you're not going to take the minute and a half to copy her name into Google to check for yourself

Today, in a story about the new "Pentagon Channel," the Washington Times lets it readers know exactly what it believes to be the role of the national media. Here's the lede of the Times' piece:

The Pentagon has created its own 24-hour television channel to cut out the middleman -- the national media -- in covering news events at the headquarters of the world's most powerful military.

About the Pentagon Channel

The Pentagon Channel broadcasts military news and information for the 2.6 million members of the U.S. Armed Forces through programming including:

• Department of Defense news briefings
  
• Military news
  
• Interviews with top Defense officials
  
• Short stories about the work of our military
  

In addition to enhancing Department of Defense communications with the 1.4 million active duty service, the Pentagon Channel will provide the 1.2 million members of the National Guard and Reserve and the 650,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense more timely access to military information and news.

The Pentagon Channel television service is distributed 24/7 and is available to all stateside cable and satellite providers; via American Forces Radio and Television Service, overseas; and via webcast worldwide right here at pentagonchannel.mil.

Leave it to Libruls to manufacture an issue where one doesn't exist - The Pentagon Channel has been around a good while - albeit in various incarnations. In earlier form, it was the prime source of broadcast material relating to DOD/Military matters - used pretty much exclusively by media outlets as a place from which to gather material, and by DOD/The Military to communicate directly with their own personnel and their families, though it was publically accessible. Its just that back then, few folks outside of media pros, military buffs, and hardcore news junkies knew anything like it existed. The current deal is that DOD recently has made it much more "untechnical-general-user-freindly" and publicized the fact it is accessible to anyone. So, alarmed that a governmental entity would have the temerity to take steps to more readilly communicate with the public, the Libruls are up in arms over somethin' they just realized existed.

Quote:

About the Pentagon Channel

The Pentagon Channel broadcasts military news and information for the 2.6 million members of the U.S. Armed Forces through programming including:

• Department of Defense news briefings
  
• Military news
  
• Interviews with top Defense officials
  
• Short stories about the work of our military
  

In addition to enhancing Department of Defense communications with the 1.4 million active duty service, the Pentagon Channel will provide the 1.2 million members of the National Guard and Reserve and the 650,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense more timely access to military information and news.

The Pentagon Channel television service is distributed 24/7 and is available to all stateside cable and satellite providers; via American Forces Radio and Television Service, overseas; and via webcast worldwide right here at pentagonchannel.mil.

CJR is a BLOG? I don't think so.

Lola wrote:
And McG, tell us why you chose your avie.


Lola, why did you choose your avatar?