Charlotte Observer, Goodbye
Today marks the first day since I graduated college in 1990 that I’m not a regular subscriber to my local newspaper. Fair enough — I had given up daily service a few years ago an only opted for Friday, Saturday & Sunday.
But it is time to say goodbye to the dinosaur. As of today, The Charlotte Observer is not getting anymore of my money.
Why, you may ask? Because of what is plaguing other local newspapers — editorial bias influencing their “news reporting”.
The past few days have been the last straw. Part of the Observer’s problem is that they are a McClatchy Newspaper — a well-known liberal publisher. And these two straws are mostly McClatchy-generated. But nonetheless they are a symptom of the Observer’s cancer. They do not report “news”, they advocate for their point of view. That is fine on the Editorial Page. But not Section A or the Local News Section.
First straw: Front Page Lies About The Iraq War in Sunday’s paper (posted on the Web last Friday)
When the Bush administration invaded Iraq seven years ago, it pledged to leave behind a democracy that would be a model for the entire Middle East. Instead, it now appears that the United States will leave behind a big question mark.
Sunday’s parliamentary elections in Iraq will start the clock on the withdrawal of U.S. troops, with 50,000 soldiers remaining in an advisory role after Aug. 31 and all of them gone by the end of 2011, if current plans hold.
The elections are, in a sense, the final act of a U.S.-led invasion that the George W. Bush White House sold on false pretenses - nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, an imaginary nuclear-weapons program and fictional al-Qaida ties – and that has cost nearly 4,400 American lives, at least 100,000 Iraqi ones, as much as $3 trillion and untold political capital.
The bolded part is not only editorializing — it is a lie. ALL of the Western intelligence services concluded the same thing the CIA did: There were WMD, an active nuclear program, and ties to al-Qaida in Saddam’s Iraq. The phrase “false pretenses” suggests (as most liberals do) that “Bush Lied.” Was Iraq an intelligence failure? Certainly. But everyone who supported the Iraq war did so in a post-9/11 mindset and sincerely believing the intelligence they were given. That includes Al Gore, Bill & Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.
Second straw: A Biased Profile of the SC 2nd District Race (Joe Wilson)
You can read the story itself. Every mention of Wilson is negative, every mention of his opponent is positive.
The Observer can print this drivel on their “news” pages and pretend they aren’t biased. But I don’ t have to pay for it.
After all, thanks to Obama this economy is even worse than under Bush. THAT is a fact.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
23 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Bruce,
I hope you sent a note along with your cancellation explaining your reasons. In fact, this post would serve the purpose wonderfully.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — March 10, 2010 @ 7:15 am - March 10, 2010
I gave up my local paper after 40 years for similar reasons, but get this! We have two freebie weekly magazines that are aimed at readers in their twenties and thirties. They are so socially liberal it is like visiting a zoo. However they really dig up local news and, slanted as it is, you at least learn what is going on in the community.
If all of a sudden there is a lot of clearing of land somewhere, you can find out in these rags who is doing it and why. The staid local paper would only report on it if the planning commission was arguing over a catchment easement or something.
The point is, you catch more news by knowing people connected with the news and then unwinding the gossip than you do by sending reporters to government offices and meetings. The MSM is lazy and without imagination.
Comment by heliotrope — March 10, 2010 @ 9:42 am - March 10, 2010
If this isn’t the most frequently used Republican desperate rationalization then I don’t know what is. Let’s look at each part.
The bolded part is not only editorializing — it is a lie.
Saying that the war was ’sold with false pretenses’ doesn’t necessarily mean you are accusing the Bush administration of lying, though I would certainly make that argument. The pretenses for the war (there are lots of WMD) were false (there weren’t any WMD.) That’s a fairly cut and dry statement of unassailable fact.
ALL of the Western intelligence services concluded the same thing the CIA did: There were WMD, an active nuclear program, and ties to al-Qaida in Saddam’s Iraq.
Okay, pay attention, this is important.
It isn’t just the fact that Bush thought Saddam had weapons. It’s that Bush was out there, in full force, with his entire administration, insisting that any minute now, Saddam was going to start using those weapons, against us or our allies. Yes, Clinton thought Saddam had weapons, but only a few, none nuclear, and he did not think he was likely to give them to terrorists. Yes, many intelligence agencies thought similarly. But nobody was making the case that Saddam was an imminent threat except for the Bush administration, nobody thought Saddam was making nukes, and nobody thought he was going to give them to terrorists.
Second, there are reports from all around the world’s intelligence agencies, including our own, that directly contradicted Bush’s arguments. His own Department of Energy tried to explain that those aluminum tubes were not for nuclear purposes, but that did not stop him from talking about it in his State of the Union address like it was an absolutely certain, undeniable fact. You also have the case of Joe Wilson, who reported that Saddam was not trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger, and instead of meeting these criticisms head on, the administration tried to undermine his credibility by blowing a covert operative’s cover.
You can’t go around for months on end with the kind of deliberate and absolute certainty that these guys based on evidence. They were cherry-picking and everyone knows it. They decided to invade Iraq very early, there was no process, there was no consideration. They decided to invade, and then they decided how they would sell it. The things that backed up their case would be trumpeted and exaggerated, the things that didn’t would be filed away and forgotten. This is about as obvious a case of deliberate propaganda and public misinformation as can be imagined, and conservatives would have us believe it was an honest mistake.
The phrase “false pretenses” suggests (as most liberals do) that “Bush Lied.”
It suggests it, certainly. And if you believe anything other than that, you are certifiably delusional.
Was Iraq an intelligence failure? Certainly.
No, it was a political. You can’t just blame our intelligence agencies, intelligence doesn’t invade countries and intelligence doesn’t mismanage an occupation for years and years. You’re supposed to interpret the intelligence, not mold it around whatever you’ve already decided to do.
This also doesn’t touch on the extreme amount of corruption that came with Iraq and all of the associated contracts or the complete incompetence in managing the occupation. Not only did they get the justification for the war totally wrong, they executed it about as poorly as can be imagined by not sending enough troops, not having the right amount of equipment, assuming the absolute best outcomes at every turn, etc. Iraq is waaaay more than an intelligence failure, it’s a Republicans-as-leaders failure that is helping to bankrupt the country, ruin our reputation, and oh yeah, get thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed.
But everyone who supported the Iraq war did so in a post-9/11 mindset and sincerely believing the intelligence they were given. That includes Al Gore, Bill & Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.
Love to hear this coming from you small government, libertarian types. When it’s a Democrat in charge, the government messes up everything, they lie, they’re corrupt, they cheat, steal, etc. But when a Republican is in charge, and the mistakes become so huge that they are impossible to ignore or explain away, it’s all ‘Oh, he believed it sincerely. He was doing the best he could, really.’
That right there is why I know you guys don’t mean anything you say. A President tries to reform healthcare for tax-paying Americans in this country, and that will get you up in arms, but someone gets caught in one of the biggest lies of all time that ends up costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives…. not a peep. No big deal, right?
Comment by Levi — March 10, 2010 @ 5:04 pm - March 10, 2010
Just read the piece on Joe Wilson at the Charlotte Observer web site you linked to above.
To the right the article is a box titled “MORE INFORMATION” which gives the link to a Dem web site.
(http://www.lexingtondemocrats.org/dem). No link any GOP group or web site.
James Rosen and the people in charge at the Charlotte Observer long ago stopped pretending to be objective.
Comment by Kevin Gregory — March 10, 2010 @ 5:53 pm - March 10, 2010
Levi,
We’ll turn off the light if you promise to go back under the refrigerator and munch on the insulation.
Honestly. you are s-o-o-o dedicated to establishing your independent premise and then defending it as if it were connected to some other line of reasoning. Please get a clue.
Comment by heliotrope — March 10, 2010 @ 7:27 pm - March 10, 2010
I gave up reading my local newspaper – the Atlanta Journal-Constitution – 10 years ago for the same reason. They don’t “do” journalism. It’s nothing but a propaganda rag for the Left. Not just on national stories, either. Every conceivable form of corruption by liberals and Democrats in this city is excused to this day by this newspaper. To the extent I know what they are printing at all these days, it is only because I come across the occasional copy in a fast-food restaurant that has been left there. I certainly wouldn’t actually pay for this bird-cage liner. My sister did the same with her local paper – the NYT – 6 years ago for the same reasons. These papers need to get a clue as to why their subscription revenue is dropping like a stone. It is NOT just because of the Internet. People notice when you cease to be a reporter of news and become a sycophant of the Left.
I too, Bruce, hope you sent them a letter explaining the reason for your cancellation. Not that it will likely do any good – but at least you can make it clear why you no longer see any value in their product. I am sick and tired of newspaper editorial boards claiming that their declining subscription numbers have nothing to do with the quality of their reporting.
Comment by Mark J. Koenig — March 10, 2010 @ 7:47 pm - March 10, 2010
Honestly. you are s-o-o-o dedicated to establishing your independent premise and then defending it as if it were connected to some other line of reasoning. Please get a clue.
I don’t know what you’re referring to, I am an unabashed liberal. As close as the two parties are on most issues, it’s exceedingly useless to walk around referring to yourself as an independent. Obama is not a liberal – he’s just a moron.
Comment by Levi — March 10, 2010 @ 11:24 pm - March 10, 2010
Damn, levi has finally admitted Obama is a moron. Notice how Tano has been absent for quite some time now.
Hope they stick around, I want to hear them spin a lose of 140 seats in the House and control of the Senate in November.
Comment by John in Dublin CA — March 11, 2010 @ 2:15 am - March 11, 2010
“I don’t know what you’re referring to, I am an unabashed
liberalfascist.”Fixed it for you Levi.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 6:09 am - March 11, 2010
Yes, Clinton thought Saddam had weapons, but only a few, none nuclear,
Oh really?
Lord BJ, 16 Dec. 1998
Lord BJ’s report to congress, 3 Sept. 1998
Statement to UN Security Council 9 Sept. 1998
Shall I go on?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 11, 2010 @ 8:01 am - March 11, 2010
Statement to UN Security Council 9 Sept. 1998
Shall I go on?
First of all, there’s a world of difference between stating an intention to disrupt any potential nuclear weapon programs in Iraq as a matter of general foreign policy and explicitly stating that these specific aluminum tubes are for nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein is going to attack somebody with them so we need to start a war.
Second, you don’t seem to realize how bringing up all of these other people who thought Saddam had weapons is an argument that totally undermines your defense of the Bush administration. If anything, that makes the GOP look even worse. The intelligence agencies and the Clinton administration made the minor mistake of believing something false about Saddam, then Bush came in and turned that minor mistake into one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in the history of the country.
If the evidence wasn’t strong enough for anyone in the West to invade, and then when George Bush arrives it suddenly becomes strong enough to invade, but after the fact none of the evidence materializes, you have some important questions to ask about George Bush’s motivations. Was he looking at ALL the evidence soberly and dispassionately? Was he trying to avoid a war, the way that dozens of world leaders had for years? Or had he made up his mind already and decided that pictures of him in a flight suit would make a great campaign prop for his re-election?
I think the answer there is pretty obvious. You don’t get something as wrong as the Bush administration did without willfully blinding yourself to the realities that don’t conform to your desires. Who cares what other intelligence agencies and administrations thought about Iraq, they didn’t invade the country. It’s a shameless attempt to lift the responsibility off of the Republican party and put it on somebody, anybody else. What don’t you simpletons understand about the principle that the guy that says ‘We’re going in’ takes all of the responsibility?
Comment by Levi — March 11, 2010 @ 8:52 am - March 11, 2010
Ah yes, again Levi argues that anyone who makes mass graves of children can’t be all bad.
Fact is Levi, this is what is called ‘actionable intelligence’ Sadam Hussain had given no data that he’d destroyed his stockpiles. Had not lived up to his obligations on the ceasefire from his invasion of Kuwait, and was giving aid and comfort to terrorists.
I understand you’re on record of saying you don’t care how many others die so you can sleep safe at night in your knowlege that KSM wouldn’t get wet. I understand you lie to ’support’ your point. The rest of us human beings though, like the little thing called truth.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 9:20 am - March 11, 2010
I can’t even remember the last time I picked up an actual newspaper. I get my news online from multiple sources, the radio and occasionally from TV. The bias in the papers is only part of the reason why, the new medium just fits my hectic lifestyle.
Comment by John — March 11, 2010 @ 9:22 am - March 11, 2010
OMG! I read this article in the Newark, NJ, Star-Ledger and had the same reaction about the exact same words that you did. So it’s also good-bye Newark Star-Ledger!
Comment by Charles — March 11, 2010 @ 11:29 am - March 11, 2010
Fact is Levi, this is what is called ‘actionable intelligence’ Sadam Hussain had given no data that he’d destroyed his stockpiles. Had not lived up to his obligations on the ceasefire from his invasion of Kuwait, and was giving aid and comfort to terrorists.
Were any of those reasons that George Bush gave for invading the war? Or did he have his entire administration out there forecasting imminent armageddon because Saddam was waiting to attack?
That Saddam didn’t ‘provide data’ that he had dismantled his stockpiles is not a good enough reason to commit to a hugely expensive decade-long war. Neither is the ceasefire thing, neither is the fact that he was providing aid and comfort to terrorists. That’s why they weren’t pushed to the forefront of political discussion every day in American during the run-up to the war. Bush was saying that Saddam was on the verge of an attack, had weapons of mass destruction, was actively helping Al-Qaeda, and was responsible for the anthrax attacks in 2001. None of those things are even remotely true. It was propaganda presented to the public to enable a decision they had already made based almost exclusively on electoral politics and campaign contributors. As I’ve said many times before, it is one of the worst things an American president has ever done, and history will not judge him kindly for it.
You’ll see about that last part in a couple of decades, rest assured.
Comment by Levi — March 11, 2010 @ 11:42 am - March 11, 2010
Again, Levi would rather leave a man in defiance of international law, a known terrorist conspirator, and capable of killing massive numbers of innocents in charge of weapons of mass destruction than follow what the policy of the united states in 1998 was established to be.
Got it.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 12:09 pm - March 11, 2010
Were any of those reasons that George Bush gave for invading the war?
Indeed they were.
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups.
The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people.
The entire world has witnessed Iraq’s 11-year history of defiance, deception, and bad faith.
And that is in a prime-time speech to the nation.
In short, Levi, you lose. Again, you have been demonstrated to be an ignorant, amoral, lying fool with no grasp of what you are talking about and a complete lack of intellect or curiosity.
Also, you and your Barack Obama and fellow liberals insist that child rape is “cool” and that the people who endorse, support, and practice it are brilliant creative minds.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2010 @ 6:55 pm - March 11, 2010
If the evidence wasn’t strong enough for anyone in the West to invade, and then when George Bush arrives it suddenly becomes strong enough to invade, but after the fact none of the evidence materializes, you have some important questions to ask about George Bush’s motivations.
Or, more likely, given the proven FACT that Saddam Hussein was bribing the UN other governments with billions of dollars to look the other way, we should be asking why people like Levi and his fellow Obama Party members were so quick to endorse and support Saddam.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Levi was purchased. Levi and his fellow ignorant fools shriek about torture, but then endorse and support regimes like Saddam’s that tortured literally hundreds of thousands of people, including children, for simply being of the wrong religious beliefs or ethnic groups. Again, we see the liberal left and the Obama Party accusing others of that which they openly practice themselves.
So tell us, Levi; you support and endorse bribery of the UN, don’t you? Since you say that giving politicians money invariably makes them decide in your favor, that means your Obama Party and your fellow liberals were purchased by Saddam. You ignored Saddam’s behavior because he paid you. Isn’t that right, little boy?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2010 @ 7:01 pm - March 11, 2010
Nor did they take out Osama bin Laden even though they had multiple chances to do so. But he had sex with interns, raped women and took credit for the results of “Reaganomics”.
Except that they are:
http://tinyurl.com/v2r5
What is true is that liberals have been actively LYING to the American public and playing politics with our national security and our soldiers’ lives for far too long.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 12, 2010 @ 7:15 am - March 12, 2010
Again, Levi would rather leave a man in defiance of international law, a known terrorist conspirator, and capable of killing massive numbers of innocents in charge of weapons of mass destruction than follow what the policy of the united states in 1998 was established to be.
Got it.
Just because someone, somewhere along the line has a policy of regime change doesn’t mean you are totally justified in invading a country and making ridiculous claims to the American people about their imminent demise if you don’t.
Also, Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, and the number of people that he wasn’t able to torture and kill because he wasn’t around anymore has been more than offset by the hundreds of thousands that have been killed or maimed as a result of our invasion.
Comment by Levi — March 12, 2010 @ 8:07 am - March 12, 2010
Or, more likely, given the proven FACT that Saddam Hussein was bribing the UN other governments with billions of dollars to look the other way, we should be asking why people like Levi and his fellow Obama Party members were so quick to endorse and support Saddam.
Yes, yes, now you’re really making sense. Saddam was spending billions on bribes to get people to look the other way at his weapons that did not exist.
Levi and his fellow ignorant fools shriek about torture, but then endorse and support regimes like Saddam’s that tortured literally hundreds of thousands of people, including children, for simply being of the wrong religious beliefs or ethnic groups.
Here you are with this second-graders’ grasps of political questions. I don’t want anyone tortured anywhere and I think Saddam was a horrible person. But it simply can’t fall to us to go around the planet making sure that no one is torturing their citizens by invading their countries and converting them to democracy. It just isn’t effective. More Iraqis have died in our war than were gassed by Saddam in the eighties, and that’s a problem.
I also would like to think that Americans want to hold a higher standard for themselves. You seem to think that since Saddam was torturing people, it’s okay for us to. Even though it’s against international law, it’s against United States law, it’s terribly ineffective and immoral, and we’ve killed about a hundred people in our custody and have scarred mentally and physically many thousands of very innocent people. These activities aren’t something that I want associated with this country. Saddam was a tryannical dictator and I am sorry that he tortured people, but there was no effective way for us to deal with that. I am much more concerned with the actions of our own government, because we should be better than that.
Comment by Levi — March 12, 2010 @ 8:16 am - March 12, 2010
Again, Levi trots out the lies. He says the weapons didn’t exist, when we know they did because we found some. He feels that Sadam’s word was good enough.
He dismisses the fact that Hussain was bribing people, hoping that anyone will buy snark instead of documentation.
He ignores when his rants are disproved with documentation, and continues to lie.
He ‘doesn’t belive we should impose democracy’ but does believe that we should just throw democracy out the window when he disagrees with what free people want and drag us to his utopia, whether he wants it or not.
So I must ask, what does Levi have against free people? When a mass murdering dictator has WMD, willingly obfuscates their status, refuses to obey international law, and slaughter women and children, he’s fine with it. When people don’t beleive as he does however, he feels that abandoning democracy is fine and they should be dragged for ‘their own good’. to his utopia.
Wow, it’s a good thing Levi’s a whiny 26 year old who doesn’t have any clue of how the constitution works. If he was an actual politician, he’d be sounding more like Che, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Stalin and Hitler, all of which wanted to drag the people to a utopia.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 12, 2010 @ 9:09 am - March 12, 2010
Hmm kind of tying in to this. Apparently the Detroit Free Press isn’t keen on reporting corruption
H/T Media Blog
Comment by The_Livewire — March 12, 2010 @ 10:06 am - March 12, 2010