Their morning show anchor:

Your move CNN.

Jamie posted this at 6:30 PM EDT on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 as Journalism

2 Comments »

In the midst of a column that generally makes sense, Eugene Robinson says something stupid:

The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia — and in just about every city in the nation, big or small — there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.

D.C. banned handguns. In 2006, something of a good year for crime in D.C., it had only the 7th highest murder rate in the country. Compare the murder rate in D.C. to the cities in Texas. If what Robinson writes is true, why does the most murderous city in gun-friendly Texas, Houston, have a murder rate 40% lower than D.C.? If you sort that list by murder rate, you’ll see that three of the four least murderous cities are in Texas. I guess there’s a wise crack to be made here that Texans are better at controlling their guns than people in other states, but such flippancy takes away from the point, which is Robinson’s inaccuracy.

Anyone who keeps repeating such misinformation should be banned from writing in newspapers until they actually do a smidgeon of research on the topic. Frankly, editors should be embarrassed to allow this sort of uniformed ignorance to go to press.

P.S. Also note that Robinson refers to the Second Amendment’s “pride of place” within the Bill of Rights by its position as the 2nd amendment. That is, of course, wrong. It was actually the 4th amendment submitted to the states for approval, but the first two proposed amendments didn’t get the approval of enough states. The actual amendment that was proposed as the 1st amendment was a rather confused compromise that would have had virtually no impact had it passed. The original proposed second amendment was not ratified by the requisite number of states until 1992 and became the Twenty-seventh amendment. Hence, it’s goofy and ill-informed to infer that the order of amendments relates to their importance. I have a feeling that had the Founders ranked amendments by their importance, the Third would have come 1st.

Apollo posted this at 4:24 PM EDT on Friday, June 27th, 2008 as Journalism

5 Comments »

Since Obama decided not to be bound by his word to accept public financing, the media has, slowly but surely, started to notice that perhaps their Holy One isn’t as pure as they’d lead themselves to believe.

This Washington Post editorial is indicative, I think, of the sort of soft u-turn journalists are going to start making in this election. When the only option is Hillary Clinton, it’s easy to overlook Obama’s deceitfulness. But when he’s next to John McCain, it starts to become obvious that McCain walks the walk that Obama talks.

I didn’t think there was much that could swing the media from Obama, but they have become significantly less enthralled since the public financing decision. How much will he have to spend to compensate for the loss of media goodwill he’s suffered?

Apollo posted this at 3:36 PM EDT on Friday, June 27th, 2008 as Journalism, Audacity of Hype

No Comments »

From Steve Sailer:

From Reason magazine (which really ought to look into changing its name to something more appropriate, such as Smugness)

Like many things Sailer writes, I didn’t realize it was so until I read it from him. But Reason, with the notable exception of their clips from the delightful Drew Carey, has got to be the smuggest journal of opinion not written by Communists.

P.S. Having just glanced at Reason’s home page, I’m curious if anyone knows why the Ron Paul campaign spelled revolution, “rEVOLution”? Every time I saw one of those signs, I just thought it was “love” spelled backwards, but that doesn’t really make much sense, especially in light of the Paul campaign. What was I missing?

Apollo posted this at 12:46 AM EDT on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 as Conservatism, Journalism

5 Comments »

Here’s a nifty trick: Obama says that Republicans will use his race against him. They’ve haven’t, of course. So Obama is here calling Republicans racist for something they haven’t done. He’s not waiting around to use his race as a shied; he’s launching a preemptive attack with his sword.

Also note, the end of the story mentions his Philadelphia speech, and the only comment on it is that it was “widely praised.” The fact that he’s since gone back on the actual substance of that speech, and that it now looks ridiculous, is unimportant; it was widely praised at the time. I’m getting a feeling that’s how it’s going to be with an Obama candidacy.

Apollo posted this at 9:45 AM EDT on Saturday, June 21st, 2008 as Journalism, Race, Audacity of Hype

No Comments »

Pretty much any time a news story involves numbers, you can count on journalists and editors to screw up basic arithmatic. Here’s the latest example:

According to a report released in April 2004 by the Congressional Research Service, the average price for petrol in the United States during the summer of 2003 was 1.74 dollars per gallon (around 3.5 liters).

Today, gasoline prices across the United States are around 3.5 times higher, averaging more than four dollars per gallon.

3.5*1.74=6.09. The day may come when gas will top $6, but it is not this day.

Apollo posted this at 1:58 PM EDT on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 as Journalism

2 Comments »

Tom may be tired of Trinity stories, and it may be that the whole country is tired of Trinity stories, but that ought not justify the way that the press is simply letting this story slide. Less than three months ago, the whole country was beat about the head region with the fact that a presidential candidate had given an amazing speech, a speech worthy of history, a speech of a statesman. In that speech, Obama stood by his racist preacher, he stood by his racist church, and he had the audacity to lay his race problem at the feet of the country. Now, in the face of political pressure, Obama has abandoned his preacher, and he’s abandoned his church, but he’s yet to admit what he’s personally done wrong.

The guys over at Powerline have amassed some amusing links of people who got tingles in their legs when Obama gave his Philadelphia speech (though none are as delightful as this Andrew Sullivan post, which should get some sort of award).

I posit that there is precisely one reason Obama’s resignation from his church is not a bigger story. Journalists are unbelievably embarrassed at what fools this experience has shown them to be. So many supposedly skeptical people fell hook, line, and sinker for Obama’s ruse. They were wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong, wrong^∞. It’s unsurprising that his complete retreat from such a major speech is not the major story it ought to be. Why would journalists like to remind people of this episode? Aside from hurting their preferred candidate, it also hurts them.

Addendum: I see that the gushy Mr. S. has decided, after a few days, has found the time to write about Obama negating his Philadelphia speech. Ask yourself if he’d offer this sort of understanding for a white evangelical church that chose to involve itself in politics.

Apollo posted this at 12:10 AM EDT on Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008 as Journalism, Race, Audacity of Hype

1 Comment »