The Myth Of Objective Reporting

The way Charles and David Koch have been treated by the media the last couple of years, one would've thought they were Freddy Kreuger's uncles (perhaps I shouldn't mention David once ran for Vice President as a Libertarian), so it was hardly surprising to encounter the reaction from the aforementioned media when it was reported the Koch brothers were looking into buying several newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times.

Apparently, if they become the owners of these publications, gone will be the days of objective reporting at these illustrious “beacons of truth”, informing an eager public in a neutral manner of the all the news, both big and small, as if we have always witnessed objective reporting from our newspapers and television networks.  I find their reaction rather funny, considering how they treated the Koch brothers, but it goes beyond just this turn of events.

Are the “beacons of truth” even aware of the fact their journalistic forefathers in the late 18th century never bothered to fact-check what they reported (especially during election time)?  Don't they recall the infamous days of William Randolph Hearst, the very man who told one of his people in 1897 to get him the pictures and he would supply the Spanish-American War?  I'm pretty sure Fatty Arbuckle and Orson Welles might have had something to say about him as well.

I'm guessing these same sticklers for objective reporting didn't bother to read Bernard Goldberg's expose of the television media, Bias, otherwise they'd know that the days of objective news reporting were short-lived (if they ever existed at all).  Add in the coverage of Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Pigford, Gosnell, all things Barack Obama (don't forget the Johnny-come-lately coverage of the Justice Department snooping around and the IRS intimidating political groups) and so on and so on, and one would think the debate over the quality of reporting should've been settled.

After all these years of people (including yours truly) repeatedly pointing out media bias, we need to accept the fact there is no such thing as objective reporting.  It doesn't matter where the news comes from, be it the traditional newspapers, the television networks, the online news sites or the blogs, the idea news could be reported to us in an objective, neutral manner is nothing more than a myth.  Regardless of which side shows through in the news coverage, the sooner we accept the fact all the news we get is subjectively reported, the better off we'll be.

What Happened To Adam Kokesh?

I'm not a fan of Adam Kokesh, and I frankly have no use for him, but I was dumbfounded at the news of his arrest at a pro-marijuana legalization rally in Philadelphia this past Saturday.
Most of the news so far has been nothing but questions and speculation.  However, video footage of the arrest has made its way to the Internet, and what the footage shows is Kokesh being forcefully taken away while showing no resistance in the process.  It's been claimed Kokesh will be charged with resisting arrest, assaulting an officer and refusing to submit to processing at the jail.  There's also additional speculation mentioned in the three links I've just provided, so there it is.

The questions I have about this episode are as follows: There was a brief period between the police going in to arrest Kokesh and bringing him out which is not clearly shown in the video footage; what happened during that period of time?  If Kokesh is to be charged with resisting arrest, then why, as the video footage shows he is not resisting?  If he is to be charged with assaulting an officer, what exactly happened?  If he resisted arrest and/or assaulted an officer during the period of time when it wasn't clearly captured by available video footage, then what was the nature of these incidents?

The video footage also clearly shows less than peaceful behavior (verbally speaking), as well as calls for smoking marijuana on the spot, but Kokesh supporters claim he did not smoke any marijuana during the rally, and if he has been at similar rallies in the past without getting arrested on those occasions, then why did police go in to arrest him at this rally?  Was it a general crackdown of the main people at the rally, or was it selective?  There's also the fact Kokesh has been at work organizing a march of civil disobedience on Washington, D.C.; is it possible he was arrested because of that?

There may very well be nothing to this story at all, but it may also be possible authorities overstepped their bounds with the arrest of Adam Kokesh.  Unfortunately, all I and anybody else at this point can do is speculate and persist in asking the ultimate question of this story: What happened?

Ohhhhh Brother No. 41: The U.N.'s Buggy Idea

So the United Nations, in their infinite wisdom, have decided it would be for our own good if we ate, just wait for this now, if we ate more.....insects.  Yeah, you read that right.  According to one of their agencies (as reported by the BBC), it would be so much better for ourselves (and for the planet, of course) if we ate. more. bugs. 

Now before I get into thinking of good zingers, I should note these possible escargot eating bureaucrats have (in their infested minds, mind you) come to the conclusion that this will be a great way to exterminate the plague of world hunger.  This same swarm of enlightened nannies also recognize the negative feedback this idea will receive with Westerners (they don't say!).  So what say you?  Anyone?  I'm only hearing crickets chirping, you know.

Anyway, in conclusion, my response is this: Ohhhhh brother!  And to the United Nations, let me thank you for your suggestion, and here is my own feedback to you guys: Bug off.

Time To Say Something

(scroll down for updates)

“You should've said something.”  - Bob Morris, Indiana State Representative

I've never forgotten those very words he said to me over a year ago.  What's gotten me to think about them has been the continuing trial of a Philadelphia late-term abortionist, Kermit Gosnell.  The details provided so far have been nothing short of disturbing (it's worse than disturbing, but I can't think of a more appropriate word), but even more disturbing than the details has been one glaring fact: virtually no coverage of the trial by the national media.

The local media in the Philadelphia area have been covering it, but considering the magnitude of the case, in which Gosnell is charged with over forty criminal counts (including eight counts of murder), and the heinous nature of his actions as a late-term abortionist, where is the national media?  Where is The New York Times?  Didn't they write about the case?  Actually they did.  One article.  Published March 19th.  Found on Page 17 of Section A.

What about The Washington Post?  Did they write about the case?  Actually, they published two articles, both appearing April 4th and 11th respectively.  They weren't written by Post reporters, mind you, the newspaper printed articles provided by the Associated Press, but hey, they published a whopping two articles on the case!  That's good enough, right?  And The Los Angeles Times?  None.  Not even one supplied by a wire service.  Should I ask about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN & MSNBC?

It has taken people like Michelle Malkin, who's been covering the story for over two years now, like Kirsten Powers, who wrote this column for USA Today (which got Conor Friedersdorf to write this column for The Atlantic), Internet-based news outlets like Breitbart and LifeNews, a growing list of activist leaders, and today, a Facebook event, to get this story into the national spotlight, yet the blackout has continued (and not only this case, I might point out).  Indeed, the bias is that deep.

I've known the basics of the Gosnell case for some time, yet hadn't written about it.  Just like over a year ago, those words from Rep. Morris serve to chastise me for my silence.  With what's going on right now, it is time to say something about the case of Kermit Gosnell.  What say you?

Update (10:46 PM EDT): Planned Parenthood issued a statement condemning Kermit Gosnell, albeit a placating statement and one, as noted by Ben Shapiro at Breitbart, which is used to criticize pro-life forces.  Meanwhile, kudos to CNN's Anderson Cooper for covering the case tonight on his show.

Update (Apr. 13th, 10 AM EDT): Here's footage from last night's Anderson Cooper 360º about the Gosnell case.

Update (Apr. 13th, 11:17 AM EDT): Turns out the mainstream media was shamed into devoting time to the Gosnell case, some of CNN's primetime programs, in fact, talking about the case last night (although the segment from Erin Burnett's program OutFront including the right-wing news outlets in their criticism of the media for lack of coverage was lame).  It's still something, though.

Update (Apr. 14th, 3:55 PM EDT): Another aspect of the story which must not be overlooked is the negligence on the part of state agencies in Pennsylvania, which Mary Chastain at Breitbart has shined the light on in four must-read articles (here, here, here and here).

Who Are The Libertarians?

The libertarian community, especially on the social media sites, have been abuzz over Glenn Beck calling himself a libertarian recently.  Some have rejected Beck outright, claiming he's anything but, and others have been willing to accept him while acknowledging his past actions and comments.  The first thought that came to my mind was the realization of just how right David Nolan was.

The late founder of the Libertarian Party wrote a simple and superb essay back in 1995, The Essence Of Liberty, where in the very first paragraph, he noted how broadly the libertarian label can be applied: “I am often asked how to tell if someone is ‘really’ a libertarian.  There are probably as many different definitions of the word ‘libertarian’ as there are people who claim the label. These range from overly broad (‘anyone who calls himself a libertarian is one’) to impossibly doctrinaire (‘only those who agree with every word in the party platform are truly annointed’).” 

He devoted the rest of his essay to describing his own definition of a libertarian, establishing a litmus test to determine whether one can truly be a libertarian or not.  The five principles he put forth are very simple and offer a lot of room for debate on specific issues.  Since recently adopting the label of libertarian myself (as well as joining the Libertarian Party), I point to his essay as my justification for calling myself a libertarian.  It doesn't sound like a bad litmus test to apply to Glenn Beck, wouldn't you agree?

While it is important to make sure the libertarian label is not cheapened by people who claim it, it's also important not to let the debate turn divisive.  Is Beck truly a libertarian?  I don't know, but I'm willing to welcome him for the time being, just like I would hope others in the libertarian community would welcome a newcomer like myself.  What say you?

Credit: The photo of David Nolan was taken by Carol Moore

Now Isn't That Interesting, Chapter 46

Et tu, media?

(Scroll down for updates)

Bob Woodward is considered one of the icons of journalism, especially within the ranks of the left-wing faction of the media, thanks almost entirely to the work he and Carl Bernstein did in uncovering the Watergate scandal in the 1970's, but it looks like his icon status has just been revoked.

The Daily Caller reported of Woodward claiming to receive threats from the Obama administration over his reporting, being told he would regret his actions.  Interesting.  Of course, what makes it more interesting is the reaction from the same left-wing faction of the media on Twitter (as covered by the folks at Twitchy), complete with claims Woodward is “senile”, has “lost it”, is “making it all abt him”, and Richard Nixon may have received “a raw deal”.  Oh yeah, conservatives were also said to be “humorless”, too, by the way.

This is not only interesting, this is funny.  No sooner after a revered journalist talks about threats from members of the Obama administration for asking tough questions, you have those same worshipers of the aforementioned revered journalist turning on him, dismissing his claims away however possible, trying to downplay the story and indirectly defending the administration.  How about that?

Interesting, isn't it?

Credit: The picture of Bob Woodward was taken by Jim Wallace for the Smithsonian Institution

Update (Feb. 28th, 8:29 AM EST):  It looks like Woodward is not the only one who has faced threats over critical coverage of the President.  Breitbart News is reporting Lanny Davis, a former Clinton administration official, said The Washington Times received threats from the Obama administration over publishing Davis' column, which is sometimes critical of the President; how about that?

Update (Feb. 28th, 10:37 AM EST):  Matt Lewis has now claimed at The Daily Caller that Woodward was simply “trolling for publicity” in regards to the claim of a threat.  I don't know if it is a case of Woodward playing people for attention, but with the claims by Lanny Davis, the story isn't dead, and I must say, it's still quite interesting.

State Of The Union (or: Why I Even Bothered To Write About The D@#& Thing)

President Obama gave his State of the Union address last night, and (I guess) I was supposed to react as if it were a huge deal (as if Barack Obama was going to say something I'd be happy about).  Needless to say, I had better things to do with my time than watch the President give his address, but I was reminded last night by a friend of the importance of knowing what your enemy is doing.  So, with a heavy heart, I decided to not watch the address (you didn't seriously think I would actually sit down and watch it, did you?); I read it instead.

I didn't expect anything other than the usual cheap platitudes, doublespeak, slick spin, bullcrap and in the areas where he would be genuine, nobody who believes in liberty would accept them.  Thus, I began to read the address (I should've recited that passage from Hamlet before I started: “Angels and ministers of grace defend us!”), and as I expected, cheap platitudes, doublespeak, slick spin and flat out bullcrap peppered the address.

There were mentions of energy independence, reducing deficits, investing a dollar and getting back $140, calls for bipartisanship, creating over six million jobs and so on, all of it nicely packaged spin, and then there was the complete bullcrap, like “we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and we can say with renewed confidence that the State of our Union is stronger”, “the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs”, “Let me repeat -- nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime” and so on (and so on and so on and so on).

I found it amusing to come across doublespeak such as “It is not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth”, and the parts of the address where the President was genuine included calls for fleecing the wealthy 1% (including wealthy seniors), raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour (as if it's ever been a good idea), so-called common sense gun reforms (a.k.a. gun control), and dealing with climate change (oh my, The Day After Tomorrow is upon us!).

The responses from Gary Johnson, Carla Howell, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and (of course) Rand Paul do a better job of tearing apart the President's address than I could.  All in all, while it's important to know what your enemy is doing, this is one occasion where I not only knew what my enemy was doing, I anticipated his actions (and it turned out I was right; how about that?).  So why did I bother writing about it?  Well...........I'll get back to you on that.