Like with Saddam’s rule of terror, the record and truth will be the undoing of the Democrat MSM news-doctoring. Unfortunately, it won’t happen until the historians start writing and the glorified “newsreaders” return to the comestic station at the MSM networks.

NO was broke long before Katrina hit. And after the last tens of billions of federal tax dollars are finally spent there, it’ll still be broken, just as corrupt and America will be no better off.

http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWIyZDQ1ZTY0N2UzYWEyNzZlMDQ5YzRlNGE2MGI0YzU=

Back on topic, Ace of Spades brings back another enduring image of Hurrican Katrina.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/seanpennnawlins.jpg

When someone on the other side operates on the basis of faulty information, the sockpuppets can scream “liar”. Well, if it was PatrickGryph it would be “liar, liar pants on fire” –but you get the idea.

Why it is so bloody hard for you to admit you were wrong in calling the hosts liars… I know you’ll feel better if you just atone.

If Clinton’s story had only been about an affair, you might have a point. But unfortunately for leftist liars such as yourself, not only did he have an affair, he lied about it deliberately and repeatedly — both in public and private testimony.

I don’t know, he (Nixon) WASN’T impeached like your crooked land speculating President Slick Willy who WAS IMPEACHED and used the White House as a bachelor pad to lure big-haired women his daughter’s age into performing hooker services for him.

No, Nixon wasn’t impeached, because responsible Republicans from Capitol Hill marched up to the WH and told him that if he didn’t resign he would be impeached, and, not only that, he would be convicted and removed from office. So Nixon, ever the party man, chose to resign rather than be impeached and convicted and removed from office.

Unlike you, some of us actually do know something about history.

Your continual blathering about Clinton is becoming a tiresome farce. The supposed land deal, which was speculated upon by the Scaife-supported American Speculator and (shudder!) the NYTimes. You know, the NYtimes, the part of the MSM that you MightyRighties love to villify, unless they agree with you of course. Your lapdog prosecutors didn’t find anything there regarding the Clintons, did they? No, they didn’t.

What your lapdog Republican prosecutors–primarily Ken Starr, who was going to become–get this–dean of the law school at the far right-wing Pepperdine college in California–did find was a bit of hanky-panky going on, between two consenting adults. I read Ken Star’s soft-core porn novel when it was first released on the Internet in 1998, and was literally rolling on the floor laughing.

And, what was even more amusing, after Starr produced his soft-core porn novel (no allegations regarding Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, or anything else in the novel), the Republicans in the House who were leading the anti-Clinton impeachment efforts were–get this–Henry Hyde (you know, the Republican rep from IL who, at the ripe old age of 39, had a “juvenile indiscretion” that broke up a marriage), Helen Chenowith (you know, the Republican rep from Idaho who also broke up a marriage), Newt Gingrich (you know, the Republican speaker of the House, who had been through how many marriages?), Bob Barr (you know, the three-time loser in the marriage race, who was the primary sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act) and, most interesting, Robert Livingston, the designated heir of Gingrich’s post as speaker of the House, who resigned in ignominy for reasons that have not yet come to light.

That’s only a short list of the number of Republicans who were tainted by Ken Starr’s soft-core porn novel. I understand that you really don’t want to address the issues relating to Star’s soft-core porn novel, so, let’s just say that you’ve been had.

If Katrina had been reported sanely and seen in a reasonable perspective, Congress wouldn’t be under such a need to overcompensate – so to speak.

LOL

By the way, Gryph – If your comments about Bruce are true, then why would you continually keep crawling back to his blog? But, this time, at least you didn’t go with playground-style insults. Thank you!

*Whatever* Up your nose with a rubber hose.

I don’t want the Government holding the media accountable, I trust the market. And the fact of the matter, at least for now, is that media consolidation has so far led to a much broader range and availability of opinion and fact-checking than prevailed in the bad old days of the Fairness Doctrine and the Big Three Networks.

For the record –and Bruce is a big boy…

Oh, so now you are going to vouch for his Body Mass Index (BMI)?

At some point, the MightyRighties become MightyRidiculous.

Matty, you’re the one who is not worth debating.

You shouldn’t trust any one source. You should think for yourself.

The blogosphere enables that by providing points of information and expertise from disparate sources that the MSM won’t or can’t. Obviously.

By the way, Gryph – If your comments about Bruce are true, then why would you continually keep crawling back to his blog? But, this time, at least you didn’t go with playground-style insults. Thank you!

Gryph’s implication that the only defense against dishonest media is to not buy their product is insufficient to me. If that were all we had, we would never have found out Dan Rather’s TANG memos were frauds, nor would we have found out Reuters was letting Hizbullah stage photo shoots for propaganda purposes, nor would we know when a Middle-East “expert” quoted by the NYT or the WaPo was in fact a member of a radical jihad group.

On topic, who would have taken the media to task for exaggerrating the number of Katrina deaths or the conditions in the Superdome? No one, if the only form of criticism available to us was to not watch their product.

I don’t think we actually disagree that much, my point is that policing the media is the job of the viewer. There simply isn’t anyone else to do it, unless you want the government to take a hand, and while that is what they are doing in Russia, I don’t think its a good idea to implement here.

As far as the blogosphere goes, it only adds two things to the mix, immediate response and an easy way to publish. But its no more reliable in fact-checking than anyone else. And in fact its just as capable as the MSM of making errors and being biased in its reporting.

This is illustrated clearly in Bruce’s previous post on Katrina, where he erroneously claims that:

More white people died in Katrina than any other ethnic group.

When in fact even his own linked reference says exactly the opposite. He fails to correct his post, even when its errors are brought to his attention.

Most likely because the over-riding theme of almost every post he has ever made is that GOP=Good, Democrats= Evil. If facts don’t fit that narrative, he adjusts them until they do.

So why should I trust the vaunted “blogosphere” for fact checking any more (or less) than mass media? I don’t, and with good reason.

The blogosphere commits every error and sin of the mass market media and then invents some of its own. The overall “truth” of its reporting is exactly the same, and in many, many ways worse, than traditional forms of media.

On topic, who would have taken the media to task for exaggerrating the number of Katrina deaths or the conditions in the Superdome? No one, if the only form of criticism available to us was to not watch their product.

The media should be fact-checked and the blogosphere is the best tool yet developed for doing that. I know this puts the noses of elite journalists out of joint, but it’s true. The internet connects people in almost every area of expertise, many of whom are knowledgeable if not telegenic.

And when the media’s lies, biases, and distortions are uncovered, those who did so should be thanked for providing a public services, not derided and insulted by the blue-noses in the MSM.