The Bad, bad, evil press.

A press we blindly follow in a political stupor.

from JoeUser Forums
In keeping with my last article, I've decided the following is a law of nature:

If you repeat something often enough, people will decide it's true. Even smart people. People like the reporters at the Washington Post, who reported yesterday Barack Obama is a closeted muslim.

THAT urban legend has made its rounds through the world wide web, even prompting brain- dead CNN to run a spot in January saying, No, Obama was not educated at a Madrassa school while living with his parents in Indonesia.

Originally, Insight Magazine, owned by the same company as the conservative Washington Times and a competitior to the Washington Post, reported the allegations. They based the story on "anonymous sources" at the Clinton campaign. CNN then investigated, found the story had no merit, and ran their piece in January. That brings us to yesterday, when the Washington Post published a story claiming Obama was a closeted muslim, based on rumors and, you guessed it, more "anonymous sources".

Where the hell is professional reporting? When I worked for my college newspaper, if I would have written an article based soley on sources I couldn't name, I would have been FIRED. And, the Retriever, isn't exactly the Boston Globe. Do these people just sit at their desk and make this crap up? Incidentally, the Post's website today makes no hint of their own story.

Even if Obama was a Muslim, have we become so racist that we can't see the difference between fanatical anything and religion? I'm not suggesting America is ready to elect a black, muslim President: I am suggesting that even if a person is a practing Muslim that makes them no less scary in my mind than any other fundamentalist religion -- let's say -- EVANGELICALISM. But all this doesn't matter -- Obama isn't muslim. Period.

Facts, once again, have no meaning in people's brains. They hear what they want to hear, believe what they want to believe, and facts be damned.

I'm not even an Obama supporter. More and more this democrat likes McCain. I'm not fond of Obama because of his liklihood to withdrawl troops prematurely from Iraq. That opinion is based on what Obama has said, not made up crap passed off as investigative journalism.

The Post should be ashamed.
politics
14,311 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

I can't believe that they published that story.  We expect sensationalism and unsubstantiated rumors from supermarket tabloids but not formerly reputable papers.  

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
but not formerly reputable papers.


Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you repeat something often enough, people will decide it's true. Even smart people.


Including things like saying over and over that the press is not only Bad but also bad and evil. ;)  :LOL: 
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Post should be ashamed.


As should any organization that holds itself out as an impartial purveyor of 'news' or calls its practitioners 'journalists.'

The good news is, since there are no such organizations, no one need be ashamed.  ;) 

It's the logical end-result of the liberal dogma that no one should ever be made to feel ashamed - bad for the self-esteem & all.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
jeez joe...i'll reluctantly agree with this part:

If you repeat something often enough, people will decide it's true. Even smart people


your article and 2/3 of those comments it's elicited til now support your claim.

but then you hadda go here:

People like the reporters at the Washington Post, who reported yesterday Barack Obama is a closeted muslim.


it's been a damn long time--so long, in fact, i can't point to a month (much less a date) nor even a specific year for absolute certain--since the last time i chose sincerity over sarcasm, but i'm really trying here even though i'm sure it won't seem that way when i ask: did you read the post's article yourself?

perhaps they published two of em and this is the other one?

Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him

otherwise, i'm atta loss.

that linked article is something totally different than whatever it is about which you're fulminating.

check out the 2nd graph in which obama is very accurately reported to be:

'a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago'

post writer perry bacon jr to whom the article is attributed seems to have done a more than adequate job of directing public attention to a pernicious scheme to smear barak, investigating its origins and providing the candidate an opportunity to refute it with his own words.

seems to me your outrage and indignation would be much more appropriately directed at the professional hatemongers and deluded assholes responsible for brewing up this particular biohazard.

to be clear--and for those who didn't read far enough into the article or any of it--bacon mentioned several by name: jeffey kuhner, editor of 'insight', robert spencer of 'human events' (two conservative publications more aptly titled 'lies n bullshit'), mark savage and, last but hardly least, opiate addled rush limbaugh who goofily claims to confuse obama with osama bin laden.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I really like this article, and having read others of yours, can read the disappointment in it.  But it is nothing new for those of us looking for news in news papers that do not subscribe to a liberal philosophy.  A year from now, if Obama gets the nomination, this paper will be writing a "news" story debunking this myth (or baseless allegation - as it may be true, but hardly supported by facts in evidence).  But it does lay bare what some of us suspect.  The paper has already endorsed Hillary Clinton, in deeds if not in fact in words.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
A year from now, if Obama gets the nomination, this paper will be writing a "news" story debunking this myth (or baseless allegation - as it may be true, but hardly supported by facts in evidence).


why wait a year?

what the post did was to accurately report a deliberate falsehood being passed off as fact to smear obama, provide what appears to be its sources and attempt to evaluate how much damage it's done.

one paragraph into the article its writer states clearly barak is a member of a christian congregation. at least six other clear contradictions between rumor and fact are presented in the 22 remaining paragraphs.

those of us looking for news in news papers that do not subscribe to a liberal philosophy


based on your comment, it seems your dissatisfaction has a lot less to do with the publication's philosophy than it does the level of reading comprehension it demands from its readers.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
based on your comment, it seems your dissatisfaction has a lot less to do with the publication's philosophy than it does the level of reading comprehension it demands from its readers.


Ah, kb, you never seem to disappoint me with your jumping to erroneous conclusions just to try to bash someone. Too bad you cant debate a topic with out getting that petty "you" (or your) in there dig. Too bad as well that you are just a mindless mouthpiece for your favorite rags. Perhaps one day you might get an original thought not fed to you by your handlers as well.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
And, the Retriever, isn't exactly the Boston Globe.


Apparently the Retriever isn't the Boston Globe, since the Retriever expects its journalism students to be professional and competent. Two things that escape the standards of The Boston Globe... or "professional" journalism in general.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, kb, you never seem to disappoint me with your jumping to erroneous conclusions just to try to bash someone. Too bad you cant debate a topic with out getting that petty "you" (or your) in there dig. Too bad as well that you are just a mindless mouthpiece for your favorite rags. Perhaps one day you might get an original thought not fed to you by your handlers as well.


hmmm 10 'you' or 'your' outta a total of 71 words = like a lil over 14%?

and i'm the one who supposedly can't debate without using those two words??

dayyum...almost enuff to distract someone who might otherwise notice not one of yall has cited a single word of that article or anything other than opinions to refute my argument.

santa's watchin. keep this up & he aint gonna be giftin the drguy house with no free tickets to a remedial debating courses no matter how badly it's needed.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
your handlers


i always love this one.

despite knowing it's rooted in delusion, this constant suggestion i'm considered important enough to have 'handlers' churning out 'talking points' tailored specfically for me really boosts the ol self-esteem
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Like I said, no one should ever be made to feel ashamed.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
no one should ever be made to feel ashamed.


f'n A  :HOT: 
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
hmmm 10 'you' or 'your' outta a total of 71 words = like a lil over 14%?

and i'm the one who supposedly can't debate without using those two words??


None of my comments before YOU injected your pettiness had any YOU in it. The last comment was not a debating point, merely an observation. Learn the difference and you have taken the first step in chucking the handlers who feed YOU YOUR talking points.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
sorry, guys, I've been working so missed the discussion on my own article. I don't have the Post in front of me with the article in it that got my goat, and when I tried to pull a copy up online, magically, it had disappeared. They got tons of flack for it. But the article is not the one you refer to, King Bee.

Remember -- I work hand in hand with the press, though hesistate in considering myself part of the press -- I produce photos to go with the spin (on both sides of the aisle) that everyone rallies against. However, my dad is a former reporter and I grew up in a household of journalists.

As for the nut jobs you reference, especially Michael Savage, I have to take him in VERY small doses. Limbaugh, no secret, I think is funny -- though dumbs down everything so even those popping pills can get the gist.

I think the press, over the past several years, has gone straight down hill. More and more they use each other as the story. It's amazing -- and sad -- and more and more my main source of news is CSPAN.
Gotta run and do some work!
M
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
But the article is not the one you refer to, King Bee.


i just went to huffington's site and chased their link to horse's mouth where i found this:

Okay, the Washington Post reporter who wrote today's front page article on the rumors that Obama is a Muslim has now responded to all the criticism of the piece he's been getting from readers and elsewhere today.

oooh the outrage!

here's where ya go when you click on 'front page article':

Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him

it's the exact same article you'll find by following my link.

did the post publish 2 of these or has one been modified since original publication?
i got no clue. i can't imagine it would have gone unnoticed or unremarked.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
the first step in chucking the handlers who feed YOU YOUR talking points.


apparently my handlers are messin up bigtime by stuffin me so full of talking points i'm defending the post from criticism by the likes of huffington, moveon.org and...oh yeah...drguy.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
did the post publish 2 of these or has one been modified since original publication?


this shoulda read: did the post publish 2 different articles about the same thing or has this one been modified since original publication?

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
apparently my handlers are messin up bigtime by stuffin me so full of talking points i'm defending the post from criticism by the likes of huffington, moveon.org and...oh yeah...drguy.


I never said handlers had to be smart.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm sorry, I've been swamped with work. I think what I saw was an edited version of this in the freebe version of the Post given out on the Metro. The edited version (STILL A POST PUBLICATION, MIND YOU) left a far greater impression as I've described above than this 'extended version'.

My gripe remains, even with the 'extended version', that the Post seems to give equal weight to arguments "for Obama being a Muslim" as the arguments against. Even the opening sentece: "In his speeches and often on the Internet, the part of Sen. Barack Obama's biography that gets the most attention is not his race but his connections to the Muslim world." it leaves the impression there are actually connections to the muslim world.

There are none. That's my point. No connections other than the fact that Obama didn't grow up in the USA. Then the third paragraph continues, "despite his denials, rumors,...." which sounds suspiciously like coverage of Larry Craig.

Even reading this "extended" article (clearly the source of the dumb downed version I read which is even worse) I am disgusted with the post. What the hell was this doing on the front page????? Gotta run!
M