What is the sound of one shoe dropping?

The Anonymous Liberal has more on the gang that couldn't forge straight.

Modus Operandi

Remember last year when former CIA analyst Ray McGovern accused Vice President Dick Cheney of being behind the Niger forgeries?

Now Ron Suskind claims in his new book that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein that would state that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq.

From the linked Politico article: “It is not the sort of offense, such as assault or burglary, that carries specific penalties, for example, a fine or jail time,” Suskind writes. “It is much broader than that. It pertains to the White House’s knowingly misusing an arm of government, the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings.”

I seriously doubt that this will lead to impeachment proceedings, and that doesn't really bother me. Sure, I'd like to see it happen, but I'm sympathetic to the argument that at this point in the election cycle impeachment proceedings might be counterproductive to the aim of making sure Barack Obama wins the election in November. What does bother me somewhat is the possibility that Congress won't even make a serious effort to investigate the truth of Suskind's claims, and that even if they attempt to do so the White House will successfully stonewall the investigation, as they have countless times before. But what bothers me the most is the likelihood that the vast majority of the American public won't get even slightly angry about this, that we won't see the sort of public outrage about this that would make Congress seriously consider impeachment. Instead, the public will be distracted by the thought that in some way Barack Obama is somehow the political equivalent of Paris Hilton. I hope I'm wrong about this, but I fear I'm not.

Grrrrrrrr.

My Profanity-laced Rant Against the Media

It seems we have a global food crisis on our hands. Who knew? Well I sure as hell wouldn't, if the major news outlets were all I paid attention to. Why do I have to go to National fucking Geographic to find out about this? What network news editor decided that telling the American people about a global food crisis was a less important story than manufactured outrage about something Wes Clark said? Why aren't all the networks starting their broadcasts by screaming "Ohmifuckingod! We're out of food!!! HALP!"? Sure, I catch these little snippets here and there, such as stories about Japan's butter shortage or about Costco rationing basmati rice in California. But where is the big picture view? Why do these stories have to be doled out like little clues leading up to the two-part season finale in which it is revealed that the food crisis is the result of the Daleks stealing the Earth's food to feed their new army of genetically-engineered pig slaves?

I see this as yet another sign of the decline of our media. It's lamentable but relatively unimportant that there are now kids entering college who do not remember a time when you could turn on MTV and see music videos. (Yeah, yeah, get off my lawn, yadda yadda . . .) But is it too much to ask that I be able to turn on CNN Headline News and be able to watch, you know, a summary of news headlines? Isn't that the whole point of the network? When I was a kid and we only had the three major networks plus PBS, you could watch the evening news at 6:30pm or not at all. If you wanted to watch the news while eating dinner at 7:00pm, well you were just shit-outta-luck; it was Three's Company reruns for you. But then came Headline News! You could get a half-hour full of national news anytime you wanted, even at 1:30am at the 24-hour laundromat on Nth Street. I thought 24-7 access to TV news was a problem we had solved a long time ago. If it ain't broke, don't fuck with it.

So why is it that now when I want to the news while eating dinner at 7:00pm, I turn on the so-called Headline News channel only to be greeted by a stream of idiotic bile spewing from the mouth of Glenn fucking Beck? You expect me to keep food down with that shit on? Fuck, even the Three's Company reruns were better than that. And it's not like I can just wait until his wretched show is over and then get me some news headlines, 'cause after him they have Nancy Grace, and after her they replay Glenn Beck again, and then her again, and then fucking Showbiz Tonight, and then Glenn Beck a third time, and so on. CNN Headline News has no headline news between 7pm and 3am!! WTF??? Do I have to have a TiVo now just to watch the fucking news? Hell, if some network exec has decided that Glenn Beck absolutely has to have three hours a day of TV time to share his ex recto views with the rest of us, couldn't they have put him on one of the other 200+ cable/satellite channels? Put him on QVC, and let him peddle his brand of self-satisfied pseudo-conservatism in between pitches for cubic zirconia necklaces and Ginsu knives.

Where have you gone, Lynne Russell? A news-hungry nation turns its eyes to you.

In other news, 15% of Americans think the voices in their heads have a liberal bias.

So this morning I had a look at Instapundit (don't ask me why I keep doing it) and noted that Mr. Reynolds was shocked (shocked!) to see the findings of a recent Rasmussen poll:

By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias.

That proves it, right? There really is widespread liberal bias in the media!

But wait a minute. How good are people at evaluating bias in news reports? Do these numbers really tell us anything meaningful about actual bias in the news media, or does this tell us more about the ideological lenses through which people view the media? Here is what Rasmussen Reports has to say about that:

Not surprisingly, there are huge partisan and ideological differences in the data. For example, among self-identified liberals, all of the media outlets are believed to have some net bias in favor of conservatives. . . .

Conservatives throughout the nation see things entirely differently. Sixty-two percent (62%) see a liberal bias at the major broadcast networks and 55% say the same about CNN.

So, believe it or not, biased people tend to see evidence of bias in the media! Conservatives and liberals can look at the very same news networks, and liberals will see conservative bias, and conservatives will see liberal bias! Astounding!

Is there bias in the media? Of course there is. Anyone who looks hard enough can find evidence of both liberal bias and conservative bias. But the really sad thing is not that there is bias in the news media, but that we are slowly but surely losing our sense of what unbiased journalism is even supposed to look like. We have been led to believe that balanced journalism means giving liberals and conservatives equal time to try to spin the facts their way. If we add the 39% who see liberal bias to the 20% who see conservative bias, we learn that 59% of Americans see pervasive bias of some sort the news media. And once we see begin to distrust the media, we are less likely to believe actual facts that might contradict our political beliefs; we can just dismiss anything that makes us uncomfortable as yet more evidence of bias. We will have forgotten that somewhere out there there are actual facts, facts that are not biased one way or the other, just plain old facts.

There is one more thing worth noting in the Rasmussen poll results, something truly astounding.

There is one major exception to the belief that media outlets have a liberal bias—Fox News. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives while 15% say it has a liberal bias.

Yes, you read that right. Fifteen percent of Americans believe Fox News is biased in favor of liberals.

Objectivity is dead.