Thursday, 19 August 2010

The Press

Shredded credibility

Associating (with terrorists) Press  Dept

There are some things you get to right away!
AP, Which Can’t Issue a Stylebook Guidance To Mention Democratic Party Affliation in Stories About Democratic Lawbreaking, Issues An Important New Diktat to Reporters:
We should continue to avoid the phrase “ground zero mosque” or “mosque at ground zero” on all platforms...  The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area.  We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away.
Two common factually wrong talking points made by Ground Zero Mosque supporters in private, government and media circles are that:
-- The proposed location is not at Ground Zero, and
-- It is two blocks away.

Neither is true.  The Burlington Coat Factory, the location for the Mosque, was hit by landing gear sheared off of Flight UA 157 when it stuck the South Tower and that gear stuck the roof of the Factory.  An engine from the jet hit further beyond the Factory.  The site of the Mosque is part of Ground Zero.

Second, WTC 7 which was destroyed by the attack, is only one block [away from] the the proposed Mosque location.
Seriously, do they think people can’t factcheck this stuff?

(Dusty has more pictures here.)

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 21:09:53 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 3 kb.

The Press

Stephens Media additions for your HOSTS file

Danger: Lawyers!   Dept

Site blocklist, for cut-n-paste, share.  Additions welcome:
Or, add a plug-in.

Why do this?  Here’s why.


Related:  Danger. (Slow) loading zone.

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 17:42:50 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 5 kb.

Tuesday, 03 August 2010

The Press

Better read the fine print first...

Breitbart thinks he got a correction:

The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members. - The New York Times
Andrew celebrates, but over at PJM, commenter Mark Buehner says you’d better parse it like Pravda in the old days:
This wasn’t a correction- it was a further calumny.
  1. They make an unsupported allegation about other tea-party racist statements. That’s what got them into this mess.
  2. They imply (quite strongly) that somebody made racist statements at the capital… but they just can’t prove 100% that they were teapartiers.  Wink.
A REAL retraction would explain that there is no evidence, despite mounds of video and audio evidence, that any racial slur was uttered by anyone that day.  This pile of garbage was a non-apology apology that managed to make further unsupportable claims.
So nothing to see here, folks.  Might as well move along.

Via:  Insty.

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 22:12:09 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
77kb generated in CPU 1.79, elapsed 1.4221 seconds.
49 queries taking 1.2195 seconds, 184 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.