Saturday, May 23, 2009

Hinderaker slams Landay and Strobel for writing "the most insanely biased 'news story' in history"


John Hinderaker calls out McClatchy's Landay and Strobel for writing "the most insanely biased 'news story' in history."


"At least I think it's intended to be a news story. It popped up on Yahoo News a while ago, which I assume means that many thousands of people will read it. It's written for McClatchy by two reporters--I guess they are supposed to be reporters--named Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel and is titled "Cheney's speech contained omissions, misstatements." The article is basically a compendium of DNC/Daily Kos talking points from 2003 to the present. It is full of falsehoods, long-discredited canards, and misleading statements. I'm going to bed and don't have time to deconstruct it, but if you read it no doubt you will be able to make corrections as you go along. It is one of those "news stories" that is intended solely for the ignorant. If we had comments, maybe we could let our readers tear this piece of nonsense apart line by line while we sleep. Perhaps someday."

McClatchy's motto is Truth to Power. Since the Democrats control the White House, the House, and the Senate, it's the Democrats who hold power. But Landay and Strobel write an endless stream of articles slamming Cheney and others who are out of power. I've said before, McClatchy should either change its motto or live up to it.
Photo courtesy www.pbs.org/moyers/journal
Related:

Hat tip: Doug Ross

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow. It is stuff like this that has me eagerly waiting for the day McClatchy files for bankruptcy.

We need this coming to simply go down in flames.

I am not seeking a reorganization.
It would be best for America if it simply is liquidated.

Sell the presses to third world countries.
Put all of the "reporters" in the unemployment line.

There is nothing worth saving about this tabloid rag.

Anonymous said...

The good thing about exposing Landay and Strobel yet again, is that even the unhinged lefties have to see how ridiculously dishonest they are, and have ALWAYS been. McClatchy allowing such biased journalists to continue is reason enough to wish them out of business. Correction: Landay and Strobel are not journalists, IMO.

Anonymous said...

And exactly what were the alleged misstatements and omissions in the article? Notice the lack of specific examples. Only the usual far-right name calling, followed by the usual knee-jerk applause by MW's regulars.

Anonymous said...

Why does anyone care what John Hinderaker (whoever he is) thinks?

Anonymous said...

7:11
It amuses me that you seem to ask more of commenters on a blog, than you do of so-called professional journalists. What proof are you asking from Landay and Strobel? Did you just assume they have some sort of proof, and are truthful? Commenters on blogs are just stating their opinions of the discussion at hand. They don’t need to footnote an opinion. You need a little blogging and commenting 101 education it seems to me.

John Altevogt said...

As usual, our leftist trolls could care less how bad these rags are. It's like watching the implosion of the Soviet Union all over again and one of my old professors, Svetozar Stojanovic had a name for their behavior, mendacious consciousness. In essence, they were lying through their teeth. You knew they were lying, they knew they were lying, but the fact that they could still lie and get away with it gave comfort to their followers. I'm reminded of that every time I see one of McClatchy's apologists on here demanding that we all stick our heads in the sand.

Again, Landay could write a signed confession and these whores would still make an excuse, or tell us to get a life. Up yours, your comments just make it all the more fun to watch these rags sink.

Anonymous said...

Dan Rather cares who John Hinderaker is. You can bet your sweet bippy on that!
BWAHA!

Anonymous said...

I would guess more readers know John Hinderacker blogs at Powerline, than know Landay or Strobel scribble for McClatchy, if you mention their names.

Anonymous said...

Every time Cheney opens his mouth, the Republicans fall farther behind.

I'm always impressed by fervently you all champion the least attractive characters the party has to offer.

Palin in 2012!
Cheney in 2012!
Carrie Prejean in 2012!
Bobby Jindal in 2012!
Joe the Plumber in 2012!
The H1N1 virus in 2012!
Gobbets of puke in 2012!

Truth Hurts said...

"And exactly what were the alleged misstatements and omissions in the article?"

Assuming that you truly want to know the answer to this question, I highly encourage you to contact Hinderaker, and ask him.

Truth Hurts said...

"Why does anyone care what John Hinderaker (whoever he is) thinks?"

The anon person who posted just before you cares enough about what John Hinderaker thinks to ask "what were the alleged misstatements and omissions in the article?".

Hopefully he'll answer your question.

Truth Hurts said...

"Every time Cheney opens his mouth, the Republicans fall farther behind."

LOL Your obsession with Cheney is amusing. However, it is Obama's disapproval ratings that matter...not Cheney's.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/obama_index_may_23_2009/221538-1-eng-US/obama_index_may_23_2009.jpg

Anonymous said...

8:18, 6:40, and 6:50, how about you specifying a few of the alleged misstatements and omissions in the article? Or is that too much work?

Truth Hurts said...

"8:18, 6:40, and 6:50, how about you specifying a few of the alleged misstatements and omissions in the article? Or is that too much work?"

How about you specifying that there are no omissions...or is that too much work?

Anonymous said...

The UK understands Cheney!
---------
-Dick Cheney: brutal,
uncompromising, brilliant-
Telegraph [UK], by Nile Gardiner

Forget Christian Bale in Terminator Salvation - the new leader of the resistance is Dick Cheney. The former vice president, who this time has been sent from the past to save the future rather than the other way round, has had an astonishing week. He's dominated much of the news with his barnstorming defense of the previous administration's counter-terrorism strategy, and [completely overshadowed President Obama's weak-kneed and exceedingly dull speech at the National Archives.]

Anonymous said...

When will McClatchy ever make cuts to its DC bureau? They are manily responsible for the cuts in the other departments but they are left untouched. Why?

Anonymous said...

Many times posters have said Stobel and Landay don’t really work for McClatchy, but for a shadow regime. The anti-USA garbage they continually write leads me to believe that very well may be true. Maybe McClatchy can't fire them.

Anonymous said...

Obama is already becoming known as a ‘weak sister’ on national defense around the world. That should give US citizens cause for alarm. The UK is getting worried. How can we save them if we can’t save ourselves?

Anonymous said...

8:48:

Can you list even one omission or misstatement in the article?

Anonymous said...

I saw the article. It pointed out that Dennis Blair, who Cheney attributed many points of his speech to, said things that contradicted what was in the (Cheney's) speech. America torturing people did not save hundreds of thousands of lives, etc.

Now Tom Ridge has said the same.

Starting with Altevogt, you guys need to provide examples of misstatements in the article.

And speaking of examples, John, I'm still waiting for just ONE on how PBS' News Hour wronged you...

Anonymous said...

It's a shame that McClatchy is filled with Far Left lunancy which drives the US propaganda market. It's a shame we have to go to the UK to escape from the Far Left drivel.

"The 10 punches Dick Cheney landed on Barack Obama's jaw"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/05/21/the_10_punches_dick_cheney_landed_on_barack_obamas_jaw

John Altevogt said...

Dear 9:55 I don't do national issues that often and don't care. I personally hope they tortured the crap out of a few of those stone age monsters.

With regard to PBS, I wrote a lengthy response to your previous question however many weeks ago that was. If you're too stupid to read the first one, or too ignorant to figure out what I was talking about, I certainly don't owe you a second. Use the search function you lazy bastard/bitch and look it up. This isn't a welfare agency.

Actually you don't care anyway so why would I waste my time on someone who's uneducable?

John Altevogt said...

9:55 PS: We don't "need" to do anything for your amusement. Up yours, you're just another trol who can't make an argument and can't refute anything. So you just make up annoying questions. Where is that definition of a troll for this POS.

Anonymous said...

"Use the search function you lazy bastard/bitch and look it up. This isn't a welfare agency."

I love how my post. a cartoon, gets deleted and i never even used profanity. But here is john, not only attacking someone, but using profanity.

these guys are no better than the leftist who resort to controling content. yet they preach how left is the only one,... there is a name for that...hmmm

John Altevogt said...

Your existence here is a profanity. You contribute nothing. Nothing. You waste my time with your frivolous questions and then whine when you're treated with the utter contempt you deserve.

The phrase for what you're looking for is someone who doesn't suffer fools,or trolls. Be glad Kevin is so open minded, given your track record, I'd block you in a heartbeat.

Anonymous said...

Jesus, John, lighten up, ha ha ha

OK, OK, I'll search for it. But from what I remember, you actually didn't elaborate on it. You just flipped out, as you've done today. But I'll try to find it...

McClatchy Watch said...

Curt and Flopping Aces does a good job showing the holes in the McClatchy article here.

Truth Hurts said...

"Can you list even one omission or misstatement in the article?"

No, nor do I aspire to. I have not read Landay & Strobel's article...I have not criticized Landay & Strobel's article...I have neither suggested nor implied that Landay & Strobel's article has omissions and/or misstatements...I'm not interested in reading Landay and Strobel's article...I do not intend to read Landay & Strobel's article...I have only read Hinderaker's brief criticism of Landay & Strobel.

The person who wrote the column critizing Landay & Strobel is John Hinderaker. If you are sincerely interested (which I seriously doubt) in alleged flaws in Landay & Strobels article, then any questions you have concerning Hinderaker's criticisms of Landay & Strobel should be directed at the author himself, John Hinderaker, NOT at a person who has neither read nor criticized Landay & Strobel's article.

Anonymous said...

I get a couple of trolls on other blogs I read trying to intimidate posters with endless demands for details. Of course its all fatuous, insincere posturing. They have an utter double standard, expecting nothing of fellow believers or "professional" journalists but endlessly demanding details or proof from anyone who disagrees with them. they deserve every syllable of the disdain they get.
Notice that the real issue here is a couple of McClatchy reporters who wrote a puffed up non story that was adoring, uncritical crap for Nancy Pelosi. Once again, McClatchy is exposed as being willing to do anything for "their team". So much for any possible pretense of fairness or independence.

Anonymous said...

Troll here,

Thank you MW. Quite a bit to chew on there.

And, unfortunately, I have an issue or two. If you scroll down to the fourth item, the logic there is if the EITs/torture had been kept secret, it would have been OK. So if Clinton had managed to keep the Lewinsky scandal secret, it would have been OK...?

And (skipping ahead so I can get to my point) by the next-to-last item Flopping is just saying "This is entirely false," etc.

Maybe we need to move forward from just the he said/she said arguments. There needs to be some way of "putting your money where your mouth is." You made the claim, let's see if you can back it up.

And the best, all-American way I can think of this: lawsuits. If something in the McClatchy story is "completely false" I'm sure there are many right-wing groups who would pay for a lawyer to expose it. The information was presented as fact in a mainstream media outlet; that's libel. Why not have the Rutherford Institute, or just Rush Limbaugh (who doesn't present anything as fact, but opinion) bankroll a lawsuit? Again, it would do wonders for their credibility if it succeeded. If the facts really are on their side (and we need much more attribution in Flopping's story, and maybe a call to Blair to show this) they have nothing to fear.

But for now there's no such lawsuit because it would likely fail.

But I'll open the floor. Check out MW's link, and tell me how we should move forward and get to the bottom of who's telling the truth. I'm open to suggestions.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Altevogt said...

Libel lawsuits are very difficult to pursue. In the case of Derek's blog entries against me he was clearly writing from a malicious standpoint and lied through his teeth. The problem is that I would have had to prove some form of monetary loss in order to sue him.

Then there's the issue of standing. If the libel is not specifically aimed at you, you really have no standing to sue anyone.

Next there's the issue of factual content versus opinion. I once had a Star attorney remove factual content from my column because he felt that the high content of factual material increased the liability.

Top all that off with the fact most of the folks you mention are public figures and it is virtually impossible to even get inside the courthouse much less have a successful lawsuit.

There are a lot of folks in the media lying their behinds off, but the threshold is so difficult to cross to win that few bother to try.

Anonymous said...

Troll here,

Gotcha. It's just hard to believe, and a bit surprising, to see reporters could write something as blatant as

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s defense Thursday of the Bush administration’s policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.

and Cheney can take no action. Other than to say, "No, everything I said was accurate." But then we're back to square one, and my whole point is that's what I want to move beyond. What can be done to take the next step in settling something like this?

Anonymous said...

///So you just make up annoying questions.///

Yes, it certainly must be annoying to be asked to back up the charges you so freely toss around.

John Altevogt said...

Public figures are virtually unprotected from libelous statements. Part of the proof to win a victory against a newspaper is to demonstrate malice, a very high standard.

The mechanism we use to defend public figures from libelous statements is to allow a multitude of voices to speak in the hope that the truth will come out.

Anonymous said...

over 70% of johns post are attacking other folks that post. John comes here everyday, what we call that in this world is a troll!

John Altevogt said...

8:40 If I only contributed 30% of the time it would be 30% more than you do. The other thing that makes me vastly superior to you is that I actually understand what a troll is, troll.

McClatchy Watch said...

8:40 -- your claim -- "70% of John's posts are attacking other people who post" -- is absurd.

Anonymous said...

No, it's only about 60 percent. The remaining 40 percent is spent complaining about the many, many terrible wrongs done to him by the Kansas City Star.

Anonymous said...

How about if newspapers had to document their processes so that proof of the editorial "judgments" they make were reviewable? I saw this week that the AJC had tracked down the IP address of one of their blog commenters and tried to silence him. Unfortunately for them the IP address only got them to a company with 700 employees. When they were caught, the AJC said that an editor "approved" the inquisition. Wouldn't it be useful if such approvals were documented and the decision maker had to actually defend such decisions?

Anonymous said...

"The other thing that makes me vastly superior to you"

lol,

John, your the biggest troll on this blog.

like being a nazi kid?

Anonymous said...

Everytime there is an effective story on this blog that attacks the liberals point of view, a couple of trolls fill up the comments with irrelevant personal attacks on other posters and try very hard to distract everyone from the matter at hand.
the truth is that MNI is utterly in the Obama camp, the fiction of the fourth estate is dead and no one really believes them to be independent, vigilant watchdogs any more. The watchdogs have been neutered by their own politics.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Altevogt said...

Boy, I can hardly wait to see all the responses from the libs on here to 8:35's post. I know how upset they were when I asked someone if they had even considered suicide. Now here's a guy recommending it. Boy, I bet they'll be really outraged by that.

And, of course, there's nothing quite like being told to "MAN UP!" by someone hiding behind anonymity and posting two days after a thread started. You bet sweetheart.

McClatchy Watch said...

8:35 deleted for violating the rules.

Think Again said...

Perhaps its time to change the motto:

"Power To Redefine Truth" might be more suitable.