Not exclusively about election coverage but hell, election coverage is a good place to start.
Fact checking and "standards"
Sun, 2011-04-10 13:37
#1
bagkitty
Fact checking and "standards"
Sun, 2011-04-10 13:51
#2
bagkitty
I ran into this howler on the Globe and Mail's online version today (Sunday).
This is the province, after all, where Tommy Douglas founded the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the forerunner of the NDP.
Who exactly is this Gloria Galloway who leads off her article with such ahistorical dribble? The little biographical blurb under her byline describes her as having been " journalist for almost 30 years."
Given that the CCF founding conference was actually held in Calgary in 1932, and that Douglas did not come to prominence until his election as an MP in 1935, he can hardly be described as having "founded the Co-operative Coomonwealth Federation" (not to mention getting the province where the party was founded wrong) -- or is this an example of "truthiness" come to the Globe? Even the Wikipedia article on the founding of the CCF gets the location of the founding conference right... why is it so hard for a journalist with "almost 30 years" experience to get the facts right? And WTF is wrong with her editors that they let this slide?
Sun, 2011-04-10 19:32
#3
Gloria Galloway is a Liberal hack. End of story. Everything that she writes that you read should be filtered through that prism.
Sun, 2011-04-10 19:38
#4
Alberta is hollowed sanctuary for political conservatism. Can't have the historical record spoiling holey ground for them. Or anything.
Thu, 2011-04-14 09:50
#5
Truth doesn't matter to the media
Sun, 2011-05-22 09:12
#6
This is like saying Poland invaded Germany in 1939:
Mr. Netanyahu said that Palestinians "will have to accept some basic realities." But he might as well have said: "The U.S. is going to have to accept some basic realities."
First off, he said Israel is not returning to the borders in place before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors but emerged from the war having garnered significant new territory
Sun, 2011-05-22 10:05
#7
This is like saying Poland invaded Germany in 1939:
Mr. Netanyahu said that Palestinians "will have to accept some basic realities." But he might as well have said: "The U.S. is going to have to accept some basic realities."
First off, he said Israel is not returning to the borders in place before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors but emerged from the war having garnered significant new territory
it's actually nothing like saying Poland attacked Germany in 1939 because no one believes that, where as Israel being attacked in 1967 is widely accepted as fact around the world
Sun, 2011-05-22 14:33
#8
As a matter of fact that is exactly what they - the Nazis - DID say in 1939.
They arranged a litle "skirmish" at the border - german soldiers pretending to be Poles - as a means of starting the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RImW92mrmfw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
Sun, 2011-05-22 16:58
#9
Oh no; don't mention Gleiwitz...
it's actually nothing like saying Poland attacked Germany in 1939 because no one believes that, where as Israel being attacked in 1967 is widely accepted as fact around the world
No, that would be believing that the Poles invaded Germany. Saying the two is quite similar. For some reason, however, Israeli rabid racist nationalists seem to have more credibility than did German rabid racist nationalists.
Sun, 2011-05-22 17:34
#10
Indeed... In hindsight, and now that they have lost, the Nazi claim is clearly absurd. but Hitler only needed to convince the people of Germany, and those outside of the Reich who were sympathetic to his cause.
And like the spindoctors in the Israeli-Pelestinian situation, Hitler built the lie on more plausible lies (the "stabbed in the back" myth) and half-truths (the Treaty of Versailles as act of vengance).
I don't want to pull a Godwinism and call it a direct parallel. But in terms of tactics they are similar in a lot of ways. It may not seem so from our perspective because the situation in the middle east is still in play.
There are plenty of other examples that are less charged than a comparison with the Nazis - but the obvious irony aside, it is a classic.
(edit)
If we want to talk about big lies and siege mentality, people still believe that Rome was overrun by so-called barbarians. In fact that is not what happened at all.
Thu, 2011-06-16 00:08
#11
And one more "big story not covered" is the annual Bilderberg meeting, again with the excuse, and implied humiliation of anyone who thinks it is important, of "whacko conspiracy theory stuff".
Quote: http://tinyurl.com/4ycqkkb
I really do love how Fox News and many other main stream media outlets refer to the real media who actually do their jobs as "conspiracy theorists".
That right everyone! 130 of the worlds top politicians, CEO's, and media moguls are meeting. They keep it very secretive (along with what they are planning), but don't worry. There is nothing sinister going on.
- end quote -
Thu, 2011-06-16 00:10
#12
Daniel Ellsberg is a notable name, he was the leaker of the Pentagon Papers which showed that the American people were being told lies about the Vietnam war - about how it was started and who was doing the escalating and how many were dying. That expose led to Pres. Nixon doing dirty deeds to discredit Ellsberg, which was what Watergate was all about, which led to impeachment.
So, when Daniel Ellsberg says "the US government has ORDERED the media to NOT cover 9/11", it might carry more weight than when rabid conspiracy nutballs [like me?] say it.
He also says that the case of 9/11 whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers".
Guess what? - the mainstream media didn't cover what Ellsberg said this week about 9/11 or Sibel Edmonds, despite the fact that the Pentagon Papers full release occured this week, and THAT was in the news... but not Ellsberg's latest revalations. What, he has no credibility?? Hardly...
He says it is done partly with "patriotism" ploys, such as Bush2 used where "you are either with us or against us" [and refuting the Pres. means you are against us],, and the national security excuse - "There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security"
Article> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25286
------ PS - the Sibel Edmonds testimony:
Sibel is saying bin Laden was working with the USA "up until 9/11"
Evidence:
a group called the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC). For his part, Bin Laden donated $25 million to the cause, as well as numerous fighters, and technical expertise, establishing training camps.
US interests also converged with those of al-Qaeda in Kosovo and Albania.
The bombshell here is obviously that certain people in the US were using Bin Laden up to September 11, 2001.
It is important to understand why: the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years, promoting the Islamization of Central Asia in an attempt to personally profit off military sales as well as oil and gas concessions.
Noah - and THATS not worth reporting?
Thu, 2011-06-16 23:00
#13
You want spoonerisms? You don't know from spoonerisms!
Spike Jones - The Man on the Flying Trapeze
I don't know what happened, but this post was supposed to go over here, in the spoonerism thread.
Thu, 2011-06-16 23:05
#14
guess I;ll move mine too, then.