According to this Washington Post article, CBS is beating Dan Rather like a rented mule.

CBS executives have decided there is no future role at the network for Dan Rather, making it certain that the man who sat in the anchor chair for 24 years will depart by this fall.

These executives recognize Rather’s contributions over four decades and are not trying to boot him because of the controversy surrounding his botched story on President Bush and the National Guard, say network sources who declined to be named while discussing a sensitive personnel matter. But the executives concluded there was no room for Rather at “60 Minutes,” particularly with incoming anchor Katie Couric planning to report a half-dozen stories a year and the hiring of CNN’s Anderson Cooper as a part-time contributor.

This is absurd. If you look at who contributes to 60 Minutes, the main difference between Couric and Rather would seem to be Dan’s age and experience. But that can’t be the reason Rather’s being dumped because most contributors to 60 Minutes (Morley Safer, Ed Bradley, Lesley Stahl, Andy Rooney, and Mike Wallace) are 65 or older and none of them have been forced out to make room for perky Katie and Anderson. So it’s not age and experience, hmmm.

Could it be that they haven’t screwed up in a big way and left CBS open to unanswerable criticisms of liberal bias? That’s my guess as to why Dan is being so publicly humiliated after 44 years of service:

In place of the swagger that had served him so well throughout his 44-year career at CBS News was an obvious sadness that his tenure at the network was ticking down to an inglorious end. Mr. Rather complained that since stepping down as anchor of the ” CBS Evening News” last year, in the aftermath of a reporting scandal, he had been ill used as a correspondent on “60 Minutes” and had been given virtually nothing at all to do for the previous six weeks.

If you have forgotten the particulars behind Rathergate, drop by LittleGreenFootballs and check out Charles Johnson’s proof that the memo broadcast by 60 Minutes 2 was a forgery.

So that’s what’s really behind Dan Rather’s downfall at CBS, here’s what we’ve learned from his fall from grace:

• Those who report for the major mainstream media news organizations have a liberal bias. I’m sure that Dan’s peers think his error wasn’t in manipulating the news, it was getting caught in the act.

• The content of news from CBS and the rest of the MSM is biased in favor of liberals. Rathergate made it harder for them to keep up the charade of impartiality.

• Most important, no matter how glaring the evidence may be that the MSM is biased, they will never ever admit it because their only remaining claim to legitimacy (bogus though it is) is the gravitas that comes from being “balanced.” If Rather had actually admitted to liberal bias that admission would done far more harm to CBS news.

So when Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were caught in the act trying to swing the 2004 election in John Kerry’s favor by broadcasting a story based on phony documents, they had to claim that the documents were valid, no matter how conclusive the evidence was that they were forgeries. Ordinarily they might have gotten away with the lies, but the blogosphere kept the story alive in spite of the MSM’s attempts to ignore it. (It helped that the evidence was so compelling that nobody with two synapses to rub together could believe they were authentic.)

There’s a saying about infidelity “when caught red-handed, deny, deny, deny.” When the trap you’re in is such that you can’t even tell the truth, denial is the only option left. Mary Mapes’s explanation as to why the 60 Minutes letters weren’t forgeries is a perfect example:

They claimed that CBS used forged documents and they repeated that lie so often that it stuck. The mainstream media picked it up, repeating bloggers’ criticisms without making any serious effort to investigate the story. But then that would have required real legwork, something that very few were willing to do on this subject.

As for document analysis, it is a mind-numbing and arcane discipline, an imperfect undertaking reserved for courtroom use, not for headlines or Internet political battles. Document analysis is certainly not meant to be done at 11 o’clock at night by someone with no training or experience sitting in front of a glowing computer nursing a grudge and spoiling for a fight. But that’s precisely how the right’s attack against Dan Rather and CBS News was launched.

That first anonymous analyst (who turned out to be a Republican activist lawyer) raised questions about the memo using only a single shot of a faxed document digitally transmitted to his computer screen. Those kinds of transmissions radically change the way a document looks. His analysis was worthless.

Neither Mapes or Rather are stupid (just bitterly partisan) and they know they look foolish by maintaining that the docs were legit. But the alternative is to confirm people’s suspicions by admitting they tried using suspect documents to harm President Bush’s chances for reelection, which would have been a calamity for CBS (Americans won’t tolerate a news organization trying to subvert an election). Not to mention what Congress might have done to CBS the next time broadcast licenses were up for renewal (election meddling does not qualify as broadcasting in the public interest).

So there you have it, Dan can’t tell the truth because he’d never work for an MSM news organization again, and being dissed by CBS has got to tarnish his reputation, so another job in the mainstream media is even more unlikely. He might land something with a liberal cable channel like MSNBC, but he’s used to having millions of viewers and everybody with cable watches Fox News, so what’s left?

Well, he could always try blogging. Working with the pajama-clad minions of the blogosphere could be a refreshing change, but after years in the MSM, I doubt he’d enjoy the relentless fact-checking scrutiny. You never know, he might fit right in!

 

Tags: blog | weblog | politics | journalists | rathergate | liberal bias | liberals | scandals | miserable failure

 

 

Three weeks after Memorial Day, here are my impressions and some photos of what turned out to be a rare combination of gorgeous weather, uncrowded monuments, and surprise appearances by President Bush in his motorcade and by 600 servicemen and women freshly returned from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I arrived at the Federal Center SW Metro Station at 10am intending to quickly tour the U.S. Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, and Supreme Court building, and then sprint five blocks to see the Memorial Day Parade which was starting at noon. While heading to the Botanic Garden, I was passed by a convoy carrying troops to the parade, which reinforced my desire to hurry so I could watch it from the beginning and see the jet flyover.

Did I mention that it was hot? Ninety degrees but with a deceptively cooling breeze that made you forget you were frying inside. In my rush to get to started in the morning, I’d forgotten to bring bottled water and a hat. Actually, I remembered both as I was driving away but – because I’m half hispanic and tan quickly and partly because I grew up in the scorching Los Angeles summers – decided they wouldn’t be needed. A mistake I paid for later.

As I approached the Botanic Garden’s Conservatory, I could see the ceiling fans turning lazily and the term “greenhouse effect” came to mind. I had no desire to swelter in a muggy super-sized terrarium so I gave it a miss. Definitely better to visit it in the Fall. I did get some pics of the Bartholdi Park grounds across the street from the Conservatory, however. The Bartholdi Fountain (designed by the same chap who sculpted the Statue of Liberty) was one of the first monuments in the city of Washington to be brightly illuminated at night.

The next stop was the Library of Congress, which was closed. So I took pics of the gilded (23 1/2 carat gold leaf) Torch of Learning and the Neptune Fountain on the west front of the library as I moved on to the Supreme Court building.

The court building was closed too, but that turned out to be a lucky break. The ornate bronze doors at the west entrance which depict historic scenes in the development of the law are recessed into the walls when the court is open, which makes it difficult to get photos.

Sixteen marble columns support the portico and on the architrave above is incised, “Equal Justice Under Law. I’m a sucker for marble columns (my favorite building is the Parthenon) so I took lots of pics.

On my way out, I noticed a few protesters setting up at the foot of the steps. They were pro-life (anti-abortion?) activists who had taped their mouths shut with red strips of tape upon which the word “LIFE” was written. (While they stood mutely facing the main entrance waiting for the media to notice them, at least one was listening to an iPod.)

As I was snapping pictures of them, one lad obligingly raised his arms, assuming a dramatic pose of renunciation. Totally staged shot, he must have thought I worked for the mainstream media.

Walking away, I saw the protest organizer (his mouth wasn’t taped shut) being interviewed by a local TV reporter, so I guess the taped-mouth-to-get-attention ploy worked as planned. Personally, I wish all protesters used the same strategy…it would make for a much quieter world.

A lot more time had passed than expected and drums were rumbling in the distance as I got to the Capitol. I had maybe 15 minutes to get to the parade or I’d miss the flyover.

Command decision: I would pass on the parade and head to the Washington Monument after seeing the Capitol Building. On my way, I’d swing by the parade route and see what I could. It was disappointing because I’d miss seeing the troops welcomed home.

The Capitol was under construction as were most of the attractions I’d hoped to visit (The Mall, Capitol, Lincoln Memorial, grounds around The White House, and the Supreme Court building all had construction barriers erected).

Took a bunch of photos and was heading toward The Mall when I noticed soldiers and sailors forming up a block away. I sauntered over and sure enough, it was the troops from Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom staging for their part in the parade!

I hung around taking photos of them as they waited for their cue to join the parade. Since the press wasn’t there to publicize the event, I took more than a hundred pics thinking that someone who couldn’t get to the parade might view the images on flickr and see a loved one in the ranks.

After the parade, I hustled down The Mall (stopping to buy bottles of Gatorade and water) to the Washington Monument, The White House and Lincoln Memorial.

If you look closely at the pics of The White House, you’ll notice a bunch of SUVs lined up in front. I figured President Bush was going traveling but didn’t have time to wait for him to leave. Minutes later as I was waiting to cross the street to the Lincoln Memorial, the president’s motorcade came barreling down the street so fast I just managed to snap a couple shots.

Thence to the Vietnam War, Korean War, and World War II Veterans Memorials.

The Vietnam Memorial was thronged with people reading the names inscribed on the black panels, leaving mementos, and having pencil rubbings made.

At the Korean War Memorial, two buglers played “Taps.” The first trumpeter rendered it flawlessly, the second player was so overcome with emotion that he barely finished the bugle call. It was a beautifully solemn ceremony.

I also visited the World War I memorial, which – tucked in behind trees as it is and being much smaller than the ornate WWII memorial – must be the loneliest monument on The Mall.

It was getting late in the day so I headed back up The Mall to the Smithsonian Metro Station. On the way, I started feeling lightheaded and had to sit down for a while. I’m pretty sure it was incipient sunstroke from not drinking enough and walking around bareheaded all day.

It was a perfect way to spend Memorial Day, but I regret not getting to Arlington Cemetery. Next year for sure.

 

Tags: blog | weblog | memorial day | patriotism | armed_forces

 

 

According to this article in The Christian Science Monitor, the U.S. economy continues to hum along brightly:

The US economy isn’t just producing jobs these days, it’s also producing good jobs. Alongside the ads for jobs handling a cash register or a spatula are these new opportunities:

• In St. Louis, AFB International is enlisting both technicians, paid $30,000 to $40,000, and PhD scientists, offered $80,000 to $100,000, in its quest for the perfect pet food.

• In Delaware, Honeywell plans to hire people at $40,000 to $100,000 to work in a data-storage center.

• In southern California, some of the latest openings involve working on the railroad, for $35,000 to $70,000 a year. Union Pacific plans to add 2,000 employees altogether.

These reports in the past month symbolize a welcome trend during an economic expansion that at first offered only tepid job gains, both in quantity and quality.

This good news about the breadth of job creation comes against a backdrop of labor-market anxiety that has persisted despite the economy’s solid overall footing. Competition from imported goods, the threat of outsourcing services abroad, and a controversial influx of illegal laborers are just some of the forces that make many workers worried about their future.

Creating good jobs - the kinds that can keep American living standards rising - appears likely to remain a challenge. But the current employment picture at least indicates movement in a positive direction.

“We’re creating lots of all kinds of jobs, across many industries, occupations, and pay scales,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. But he adds: “If your skill sets are rusty, or at the low end of the skill range, you’re going to have a tougher time.”

The economy added 211,000 jobs in March, according to a Labor Department report Friday - a solid showing about on par with expectations. The unemployment rate fell a notch, to 4.7 percent.
…
Management and professional occupations are employing 1.2 million more people this month than a year ago - or about 1 in 3 new jobs in America. This is the highest-paying of five broad categories tracked by the Labor Department. Not all of them are CEOs or engineers, but the median paycheck for full-time workers in this category is $937 a week, far above the US median of $651.

The construction industry continues to hammer out more than its share of new jobs. It accounts for about 6.4 percent of US jobs, but has provided 14.4 percent of the past year’s job growth. The quality of construction jobs is mixed - often offering higher hourly pay than the US median but with lower benefits.

Even the manufacturing sector, which has long offered blue-collar workers a measure of middle-class prosperity, appears to be stabilizing after a period of heavy job losses. Despite downsizing in the automotive industry, 175,000 more people are employed in production occupations today than a year ago.

Thank you, Mr. President!

blog | weblog | economics | bush administration | politics

 

Today’s bit of nonsensical reporting on meaningless polls comes from the staff reporters at Editor & Publisher:

Gallup: In Shift, More Americans Now Call Themselves Democrats

In a (perhaps) historic shift, more Americans now consider themselves Democrats than Republicans, the Gallup organization revealed today.

Republicans had gained the upper hand in recent years, but 33% of Americans, in the latest Gallup poll, now call themselves Democrats, with those favoring the GOP one point behind. But Gallup says this widens a bit more “once the leanings of Independents are taken into account.”

Independents now make up 34% of the population. When asked if they lean in a certain direction, their answers pushed the Democrat numbers to 49% with Republicans at 42%. One year ago, the parties were dead even at 46% each.

This shift indicates, Gallup says, why its polls show Democrats leading in this year’s congressional races.

The latest poll was taken from January to March 2006, with a national sample of about 1,000 adults.

“Historic shift"? Um, no.

Gallup’s poll is supposed to indicate trouble for Republicans this November, but I think it’s extremely encouraging.

First, let’s take a look at previous statistics from Gallup:

The red dot indicates where things were in the 4th quarter in 1994 when the Democrats lost 54 seats in the House of Representatives, giving Republicans a majority of seats in the House for the first time since 1954.

They had nearly a five point lead in Party I.D. and still managed to lose the House!

Since then Democrats have seen their lead soar as high as 8.5 in 1997, only to fall and rise and fall again until, in the 4th quarter of 2000, they were holding onto a two-point lead over the GOP (twice what they have today).

President Bush won the election anyway.

Dem fortunes continued to dwindle until the numbers swung into Republican territory and stayed there for most of the next five years.

And now the numbers have swung 1 point in the Democrats’ favor. Hardly stunning and right at the ±1 point margin of error.

If there’s a pattern here, it’s that there is no pattern! When the Dems had a lead of 8.5 in Party I.D., they lost elections. When the Republicans had the lead, Democrats continued to lose elections.

At most, what we learn from Gallup’s numbers is that when they poll adults (as they did in the current poll) instead of registered voters or likely voters, the poll results never predict who will win the next election.

What about the swing in independent voters?

It’s supposed to be significant that, “independents now make up 34% of the population. When asked if they lean in a certain direction, their answers pushed the Democrat numbers to 49% with Republicans at 42%. One year ago, the parties were dead even at 46% each.”

I think it’s worthy of attention that those same independents wouldn’t declare themselves to be Democrats! Hardly a ringing endorsement for Dems, much less a stinging repudiation for the GOP! Gallup’s poll shows the GOP lost people who had identified themselves as “Republicans,” but evidently those people weren’t motivated to switch to the Democrats, which should worry Dem leaders.

Let’s wrap this up

When you consider the many factors that will determine which party wins in November, prospects look bleak for Dems:

• Economy: Definitely a positive for Republicans as consumer confidence is at its highest level in four years and we’re about to hit full employment

• Scandals: Another positive for Republicans in that President Bush and his administration have been nearly scandal-free for the six years that he has been in office (Plamegate’s the only one I can think of).

  Republicans in Congress have the Abramoff Scandal, but because Democrats like Harry Reid are also tarnished by their association with Abramoff and his people, the GOP hasn’t been hurt badly. Individual Republicans may lose based on their involvement, but the party in general won’t suffer from the “culture of corruption” charge being leveled by Dems.

• War on Terror: Yet another positive for Republicans. We haven’t been attacked again at home since 9-11, and President Bush looks to be on the verge of achieving historic successes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both countries now have democratically elected governments and their economies are growing quickly, and neither will be a base for Al Qaeda any time soon. It’s also good news that Coalition casualties in Iraq have continued to fall as Iraqis take on the task of protecting their countrymen from terrorists.

  Yes, polls show most Americans think the war is going badly, but I think those results are spurious, too. The real poll was the count of people who showed up in U.S. cities to protest the third anniversary of the war in Iraq. Democrats must have despaired when they saw the tiny numbers of protestors who managed to turn out, because if they can’t get their anti-war base to demonstrate, how can they get them to vote?

• Spending: A black eye for Republicans, but does anyone really think the Dems would spend less?

• Illegal immigration: Should be a negative for Republicans, but Democrats won’t secure the borders and go after the illegals because turning illegal immigrants and ex-felons into Democrat voters are the best chances they have to grow their base, so the issue remains a Republican strength.

• Supreme Court nominations It wasn’t a pretty process, but President Bush did finally name two extremely qualified, conservative justices to the court. For the first time we have a chance to stop the judicial activism that’s characterized the legal system for the last forty years. That’s an accomplishment that will have impact long after President Bush is out of office and will no doubt serve to remind the GOP base that their votes matter.

• Who has the most enthusiastic base? Things were looking grim for the Republicans’ ability to get their base out to vote until Senator Feingold started talking about censuring President Bush and liberals around the country began passing resolutions to impeach him.

  Bush derangement syndrome has again caused liberals to overstep themselves. In their hatred for President Bush, all they’ve done is motivate conservatives to go to the polls to keep Dems from gaining seats in Congress.

  Therefore the real question is, will the Democrat faithful turn out? The lackluster anti-war demonstrations show their base is tired, worn out from six years of fruitless struggle. They’ve had a string of unbroken defeats over the last six years, the latest being the failure of Democrats in the House to vote for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the fizzle that was FitzMas, and their inability to prevent conservative judges from being appointed to the Supreme Court. It’s no wonder they’re depressed and are looking for scapegoats. Make sure you read the poll results from both stories here and here. One of the polls had over a thousand votes, which makes it enlightening and accurate, at least by the standards of polling these days.

Tags: blog | weblog | politics | democrats | republicans | polls | journalists

 

What a difference three years make!

In 2003, as many as 500,000 Londoners protested the war in Iraq. Last Sunday, police estimated the crowd was about 15,000 people. The numbers fell drastically at other locations as well, Gateway Pundit has the details.

The declining numbers of protesters may prove disastrous for Democrat chances to score gains in the House and Senate in November. If Dems can’t keep their radical, anti-war base fired-up enough to go out and protest, it’s unlikely they can motivate them to vote.

I have to mention this Scottsdale Republic article on the two anti-war protesters that picketed U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth’s Scottsdale, Arizona office.

It was a very small army that protested the Iraq war Friday outside the Scottsdale offices of U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

Only two peace activists stood near Raintree Drive and Northsight Boulevard, holding anti-war posters for passing cars to see.

The protest, part of a national campaign to call attention to the human cost of the war, urged Hayworth, R-Ariz., to support legislation reducing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

“The ways of peace are not bombings and breaking into houses and scaring little children and families,” said Judy Whitehouse, 63, of Phoenix, adding that pulling troops out of Iraq would force Iraqis to work together in building a society.

Must have been a really slow news day.

And check out Michelle Malkin’s photos of peace protesters who can’t get a Peace symbol right, but nonetheless feel they’re qualified to tell us how to fight a war.

 

Tags: blog | weblog | anti war | iraq | politics | protests | protest | politics

Last Tuesday, Vice President Cheney gave a keynote address to to the U.S. Labor Department’s 2006 National Summit on Retirement Savings at the Willard Hotel in Washington D.C.

Here’s a photo (hat tip: Drudge Report) that Reuters posted:

It looks like the photographer must have scrambled around the room until he had the perfect angle and then snapped the shot. A quick Photoshop session to crop the photo and voila!

Ha ha, Reuters, very funny – yet another example of biased photojournalism from the mainstream media.

At least, that’s how it looked at first. But when I tried to see the shot from a wider angle, things started to look decidedly odd.

Did you see the word “Retire” in that photo?

After some searching, I found a photo taken by a Dept. of Labor photographer that shows the scene from a distance. There’s the word “Retirement,” easily three feet or more above his head!

Look at this page where all three images are together, it sure doesn’t seem like the word “Retire” could appear behind Cheney’s head based on the angle it was taken (you’d be seeing mostly the underside of his chin and part of the podium at the correct angle). This comparison superimposes the two photos of Cheney’s head, they’re very similar and yet “Retire” only appears in one of them. So they’ve really manipulated this one. I think it’s worse than the Condoleezza Rice “demonized” job.

Already you can’t believe what you read in the mainstream media and now it’s getting so you can’t believe what you see either. Manipulating photos like that has got to be against some code of ethics isn’t it?

[Update] Welcome RightWinged and Michelle Malkin readers! Settle in and stay awhile. You might also want to check out this post on the “Just Kidding” Bandit (be sure to check out the comment).

[Update] So Reuters does have a code of ethics! They just don’t hesitate to ignore it. Michelle Malkin is also following this story and has posted the relevant section from Reuters’s editorial policy, but here’s the important bit:

…We do not take sides and attempt to reflect in our stories, pictures and video the views of all sides. We are not in the business of glorifying one side or another or of disseminating propaganda. Reuters journalists do not offer their own opinions or views.

Liar, liar
Pants on fire
Maybe it’s time that you “Retire”

[Update] Well that was fun while it lasted. I sent this story to James Taranto to see if he wanted to include it in today’s Best of the Web. His opinion (and he should certainly know) is that:

It was probably taken from long distance with a zoom lens.

So, it looks like the “Retire” photo, blatant bit of bias that it is, is also probably genuine, assuming the Reuters photog had the right equipment. Oh well, sorry ’bout the kerfuffle.

[Update] Closure Alert! For the first time on this blog, we’ve actually solved a puzzle! Thanks to help from commenters Howard and tbrosz, I think we’ve figured out how the Cheney photo was taken. In short, the effect the photog used was a form of perspective distortion called a “dolly zoom.” For details, read the comments.

 

Tags: blog | weblog | mainstream media | journalism | politics | scandal | bush | media bias | the left | journalists