-By Warner Todd Huston
CNN released a poll on the 16th that claims that 53% of Americans don’t trust the U.S. Military assessment of what is going on in Iraq and that 72% won’t have their mind changed on their view of the war no matter what General Petraeus says about the surge next month. But if one reviews the questions of the poll and its methodology is reviewed (at least the only hint of methodology released), it makes one suspicious that it was anywhere near a fair and balanced method. In fact, there are so many questions about how this poll was carried out that the results must be viewed with skepticism.
To start with, of course, the poll is conducted by Hillary Clinton supporter Vin Gupta’s Opinion Research Corporation, the organization CNN has hired to run their political polling — a convenient situation for the Clinton campaign, to be sure. This single fact alone is enough to inform that the poll could likely be weighted to skew toward the ideas that Hillary Clinton is propagating in her campaign.
Continue reading “Were CNN Poll Questions Weighted Against Surge Report?”
Since the news came out that Jose Padilla had been convicted of being a terrorist by a US Court, many in the Media seem to refuse to acknowledge that the verdict is in. With a typical example, the AP, for instance, wants to focus more on what it feels the government did wrong than what Padilla did. I guess the AP thinks the US government is more guilty than is a convicted terrorist.
In a report that is supposed to be about
How many times do we have to see the MSM reporting on a “massacre of Iraqi civilians” that turns out to be a false story planted by our enemies before we can definitively say that the MSM is purposefully aiding and abetting the terrorists? How ever many that may be, the tally is certainly on its way to overflowing and here we have another galling example of the same thing. This time Reuters is caught taking directions from the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq with the tale of
It’s no wonder that sensible people just shake their heads and wonder what’s wrong with the extremists of the far left when they come up with such off the wall nonsense and then try to pass it off as real political analysis. It just makes people who have even the slightest clue about what is really going on in the world double over with laughter. Such is the case with today’s comedic attempt at political forecasting by nut in residence Ed Garvey of the Madison, Wisconsin
I have been watching with interest the candidacy of Libertarian Ron Paul. Like many, I’ve been wondering what the heck he is doing in this race in the first place. Let’s face it, even in the GOP field of candidates he doesn’t fit in well. Naturally, he is a whipping boy for the GOP establishment… well, maybe just a laughing stock, would be more accurate. But, there is real substance to Mr. Paul, a substance that is all too easy to gloss over by focusing on his quirks. And he does serve a very important purpose; he helps bring the debate to the right, a necessary pull with Mitt the Malleable and Rudy the lefty in the race.
At the Black Hat computer Hacker’s conference held in Las Vegas last week, Neal Krawetz of “Hacker Factor”
The New York Daily News perpetrated an interesting, yet subtly misleading headline about president Bush’s Charleston, South Carolina speech on Al Qaeda in Iraq today in theirs titled
Outrageously, Newsweek has published a so-called
Before I tell you how the Dallas Morning News is breathlessly reporting that Nobel laureate Betty Williams called for the death of President Bush at the “International Women’s Peace Conference” in Dallas on the 11th, I must remind you all that peace activists on the left are far more “civilized”, “Humane”, “tolerant”, and “intelligent” than the rest of us. OK? I just wanted to get that straight before further relating this story.
Janet Tu, religion reporter for the Seattle Times, recently came out with a mind-boggling story. She chronicles the odd pronouncement of the
Remember when you were a kid and got caught telling a lie, but your excuse was that a pal “made you do it” and it was so hard to tell the truth anyway because of this reason or that? It didn’t matter to your parents then, did it? Well, here we have Reuters revealing that they fell for a false story about 20 beheaded Iraqis that was planted by insurgents, but do they just admit it and take responsibility? No, they whine that it is “very hard” to get stories in Iraq because it is so dangerous for journalists there.
Several years ago, I wrote an article in which I urged our school systems to teach Americanism so that we could reestablish our American culture. I remember several letters scolding me for this notion, but I got far more agreeing with my main point; without our shared American culture we cannot stand as a nation.
What is it about some news outlets that they can’t report a story without trying to flavor it with their own biases? That they can’t give “just the facts m’am” but have to throw in their snide asides and negative phraseology? And, it’s bad enough when they do it in their normal attempts at “reporting” the news, but when they do it in between an upbeat report by one of our soldiers who’s opinion is that the surge is working and our presence in Iraq is a good thing, it’s all the more grating. But, then, they just can’t leave their hatred for American foreign policy aside long enough to report this soldier’s enthusiasm, now can they?