Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Wednesday July 1 -- Got news or an update?

If you have news or an update, leave it in comments.
.
.
.

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

One of O'Reilly's many lies:

http://adastrum.kansascity.com/?q=node/693

Anonymous said...

Froomkin: Editors should let journalists call the truth as they see it

New York Observer
CJR
"Not offending people is not a business model," says fired Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin. "You've got to have something to say." Regarding his dismissal: "There was of course the money issue. I was an easy line item to scratch out."
@Poynter Online

Anonymous said...

If the KC Star canned their so-called journalists for half these errors, the lights would be out already.
____________
Regrettable Error
Would you fire a reporter over this story? the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal did. Journalism student and intern Matt McCann was canned for “errors of fact and judgment [that] don’t constitute acceptable journalism at the Telegraph-Journal,” according to a statement by the newspapers editor. McCann’s transgressions included misspelling a name, getting a title wrong and incorrectly identifying the college major of New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham. That’s sloppy reporting, but the penalty seems a bit out of proportion, especially considering that Maureen Dowd and Chris Anderson have both recently admitted to plagiarism.
http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/

Anonymous said...

"If the KC Star canned their so-called journalists for half these errors, the lights would be out already."
-----------------------
Actually, I think the number of corrections in The Star has dropped dramatically since they canned Hearne Christopher. I believe he was responsible for about three each week.

Anonymous said...

Traditional Publishing, R.I.P.
A mournful elegy for a
wonderful medium.
What’s going on here?

This site is a collection of headlines from around the web, documenting the sad decline of traditional publishing.
http://dialect.ca/traditional-publishing-rip/archive

Jay F. said...

New quarter brings new opportunities on the business side. It looks like the ad revenue picture firmed up slightly in Q2 thanks in part to increased spending from grocers in many markets. The comps get easier from here and I wouldn't be surprised to see a nice bump in the stock price in the next 2-3 months.
As much as it sucks personally, the drastic job cuts MNI has taken in the past year will finally start to show up on the income statement from here forward. With cash flow able to service debt and other expenses, I think this company will start to show some earnings power going forward. Bankruptcy though still much in the long-term cards, has been avoided in the short term. Buy this stock at 50 cents a share for a double possibly triple in the next 12 months.

Anonymous said...

I read Hearne Christopher’s blog at http://www.kcconfidential.com/, and I can see why the KC Scar would rather readers not visit his blog. He has inside information, and is now free from McClatchy’s liberal bias. He blogs about a wide variety of subjects. I would venture to say I know more about KC happenings by reading my favorite blogs than I ever did reading the ‘REAL?’ newspaper. I cancelled my Star subscription a long time ago, and Rhonda Lokeman was the main reason. To allow her smut warned me that the whole paper was garbage.

Anonymous said...

Re: One of O'Reilly's many lies- As usual, bottomline.com gives us the skinny on the real story. Like I am going to believe Donovan about anything!

DONOVAN: KC STAR NOT 'FAR-LEFT NEWSPAPER'
The Kansas City Star's Readers' Representative teed off on FOX News host Bill O'Reilly (without mentioning him by name) in a posting on the Star's Web site (6/30), saying that calling the Star a "far-left newspaper" was a "lie."
Donovan deftly attempted to weave the charge as something he "heard on his radio a few years ago," but it was obvious he was talking about frequent charges made by O'Reilly on his "O'Reilly Factor" since the shooting of late-term abortion Doctor George Tiller.
Why bring up "something he heard a few years ago" today about the Star being labeled a "far-left newspaper" other than to respond indirectly to O'Reilly's charges? Why research the issue now if it was leveled years ago?
More at:
http://bottomlinecom.com/kcnews/kcstaroreillyaliar.html

Anonymous said...

Schedule Cutbacks Have Unforeseen Effects
More than 100 daily newspapers in 32 states have cut at least one daily edition in an effort to reduce costs and avoid layoffs.

But if you think that changing frequency is a matter of just shuttling around the work schedule, read this excellent piece in Editor & Publisher on the ripple effects of becoming somewhat-less-than-daily.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003986759
Via http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/

Anonymous said...

***McClatchy’s liberal bias**

You are repeating a Republican and far-right talking point. The Republicans have used alleged "liberal media bias" for decades (starting with Nixon-Agnew) as a political strategy and an effort to deflect attention from reporting they don't like.

Anonymous said...

The DRUDGE REPORT, an online success citing newspaper headlines, why do the liberals hate it so?

“A BILLION THANKS FOR MAKING JUNE 2009 -- TOP JUNE IN DRUDGEREPORT'S 14 YEAR HISTORY! PAGE HIT 675,406,736 VIEWS FROM 129,922,878 VISITS... TRAFFIC ROSE 21% FOR MONTH OVER YEAR AGO [+39% OVER JUNE 2007]…”

Anonymous said...

One of O'Reilly's many lies:


I notice DD never mentions the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Mr Tiller and PP paid them to gloss records of these perpetrators of murder.

They on a regular basis made it clear that his actions were for the health and welfare of the mother when evidence was clear that the murders were for convenience.

The KC Star indeed has never made it clear what the extent of Tiller's activities are. These scum promoted those scum as heroes.

Donovan should have left it alone because the Star is up to their necks in the crimes that this man committed and they were the financial backers behind his being able to get away with it.

Anonymous said...

Re: “You are repeating a Republican and far-right talking point.”

McClatchy’s liberal bias is well known throughout the business, for those without blinders. The political parties have talking points to be sure, but liberal bias is not one to lightly dismiss. Of course, it could be a good icebreaker conversation piece for the laid off journalists in the unemployment line, at that. Losing perhaps as many as 50% of newspaper readers due to mistrust is not a good business model. The other vanishing 50%, just view the newspapers as antiques, or something nonessential. The blame for that can be easily placed where it belongs,IMO.

Anonymous said...

Even with the fawning press coverage, more people are seeing the tax & spend liberals for what they are. Obama has reneged on so many campaign promises, the press has to bend over backwards to write pro-Obama news. Of course, the Bam can always say, TOTUS is the liar.
***
-More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”-

PRINCETON, NJ -- A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections.

John Altevogt said...

I sent this response to Mr. Landsberg this morning reagarding Derek Donovan.

Derek Donovan is the Prince of Projection. While he frequently suggests that others have lied, he is one of the most brazen, bald-faced liars at The Star. I have repeatedly challenged him to sit side-by-side with me hooked up to lie detector test while we go through my assertions about him and his assertions about me. Indeed, this would not be the first time that Derek has made up criticisms of those who criticize the Star out of whole cloth. Confronting him on his many lies was what led to his public meltdown against his many critics earlier this year on his blog and in (and below) his column. Derek's response, of course, was to label his critics liars. One of them (not me) challenged him below his column on that very issue:
------------
VOR wrote on 1/11/2009 1:51:00 PM:
Donovan’s expressed concern for civility is difficult to take seriously. He himself has often crossed over the line into incivility. For example, he is way too fond of the words “lie,” "liar,” and “lying.” Consider just a few of the responses he has given to commenters to his blog and column: “You are lying. You are a liar.” “Your assertion about Hawaii not vouching for it is a lie.” “If you claim otherwise, the spam filter nabbed you by accident, or you are lying.”

Derek, feel free to point out what you believe are fallacies in posters’ comments, but please lay off the name calling.
-------------
Donovan is a liar, he's abusive and unprofessional in his communications with readers and far from being a mediator representing those who have grievances against The Star, he is epitome of what many have come to detest in this pathetically unprofessional rag. Let me again challenge Derek to join me strapped in to lie detectors while we run through the various allegations we've made about one another and first and foremost: Derek, you're a liar.

Anonymous said...

If you don't believe McClatchy has a liberal bias, you probably think 9/11 was an inside job, the Holocaust is a myth and the USSR was a Utopia.

Yes, you are a Far Left moron.

Anonymous said...

You don't find many people on the left who think the Holocaust was a myth, that's hard-right territory.

Anonymous said...

****You don't find many people on the left who think the Holocaust was a myth, that's hard-right territory.****

Really? Then why do so many on the Left support Iran's President? Oh, because he's anti America and anti-Israel.

I see you didn't comment on the 9/11 Inside Job and USSR parts - must be true.

Anonymous said...

***Then why do so many on the Left support Iran's President?**

Who are they? Anyone with any actual influence or credibility? Names, please, and links and/or specific examples.

Anonymous said...

***McClatchy’s liberal bias is well known throughout the business, for those without blinders.***


No, only for those (mostly with right-wing blinders) who don't like the reporting. When they bother to provide specific examples (which they rarely do), it usually turns out that the "liberal bias" was that the right-wingers didn't like what was reported.

John Altevogt said...

9:48 Oh please, can you get any more tedious? Let's see, who would complain about a liberal bias, and who would not?

And the bias has been demonstrated so frequently and from so many sources that if you haven't already figured it out you're simply too stupid to waste time on.

Anonymous said...

****Who are they? Anyone with any actual influence or credibility? Names, please, and links and/or specific examples.****

Really? Compare Obama's reaction to Iran and Honduras.

Either your Hard Left blinders are affecting your brain or you're a bad liar.

Anonymous said...

Newsbusters.org

Anonymous said...

///the crimes that this man committed///

What was he convicted of? Oh, right: Nothing.

Anonymous said...

,,,And the bias has been demonstrated so frequently and from so many sources...

Which, for example? Links, pages, dates, please.

John Altevogt said...

More cut and paste BS. Svetozar Stojanovic documented this mentality in his work on the implosion of Communism in Eastern Europe. He called it Mendacious Consciousness. They know they're lying, you know they're lying, but the fact that they still have the capacity to publish their lies gives comfort to their supporters.

This is why we have nothing but contempt for the trolls on here. They can't even think of anything original, just cut and paste, cut and paste the same old fallacious BS.

Anonymous said...

10:39am . . .

Newsbusters.org

McClatchy Watch said...

10:39 -- Try this: John Walcott, McClatchy's DC bureau chief, said he could think of "no higher honor" than being compared to I. F. Stone, the left-wing journalist and KGB agent.

Anonymous said...

Right. And all Indians walk in single file...or at least the one I saw did.

John Altevogt said...

You're wasting your time with these trolls. No evidence will be sufficient. They're here to disrupt, not be informed. Again, think Mendacious Conciousness. You're dealing with people who lie and propagandize for a living.

Anonymous said...

Newsbusters.org

John Altevogt said...

Just as a giggle I tried to post a comment on Derek's blog. He is now moderating the comments and I was informed that it would be posted after it was reviewed. What a hoot.

Anonymous said...

***Newsbusters.org***

ROFL! Now there's an nonpartisan, nonbiased source. "Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias."
Now if you also paid as much attention to mediamatters.org, you'd get some balance. But no, that would require you to think rather than to be spoon-fed Republican and far-right dogma.

Anonymous said...

"10:39 -- Try this: John Walcott, McClatchy's DC bureau chief, said he could think of "no higher honor" than being compared to I. F. Stone, the left-wing journalist and KGB agent."

And this proves what about his reporting? Examples, please.

Anonymous said...

Newsbusters does not describe itself as "an nonpartisan, nonbiased source." It's a right-leaning blog and proclaims that it is.

Compare that to the Liberal Media, McClatchy especially, when it describes itself as non-partisant when it's just Hard Left propaganda.

Oh, and spamming two different threads with the same comments makes you look deficient.

Anonymous said...

Now if you also paid as much attention to mediamatters.org, you'd get some balance.

==============

You mean Media Matters that lied (twice) and got caught about being funded by George Soros? Bwhahahhahhaha

Anonymous said...

Are you actually citing mediamatters.org, funded by George Soros as an unbiased source? Oh yeah, as unbiased as Moveon.org!
---
"The Cybercast News Service (CNS) detailed the copious links between Media Matters and several Soros "affiliates"—among them MoveOn.org"

Our troll is worse off than I even thought.

Anonymous said...

///10:39 -- Try this: John Walcott, McClatchy's DC bureau chief, said he could think of "no higher honor" than being compared to I. F. Stone, the left-wing journalist and KGB agent.///

MW, I'm surprised that you don't regard Izzy Stone as the kind of gadfly that you admire. He was a muckracking journalist, always delighting in exposing the hypocrisies of public figures (of both parties) and the errors and coverups of the mainstream media in his era, that you claim to admire so much today. If he was still around, he'd be a blogger. Although you and he have completely opposite political views, he's your kind of guy.

Anonymous said...

No, according to John Walcott, Stone was his type of guy.

And it's evil twerps like Stone and Walcott that McClatchy employs

Anonymous said...

I believe John Walcott is an old Knight Ridder reject isn‘t he? I can smell these old rancid buggers a mile away. The anti-USA garbage this deadhead spews, stinks IMO. The question is, why doesn’t he smell his stinking carcass himself?

Anonymous said...

Obama is being called ‘the Debt President’ already.

Anonymous said...

Our troll says for the millionth time,“Which, for example? Links, pages, dates, please.”
Did you ever hear of Google? A simple search will yield plenty of examples, links, pages, and dates. Do you ask these same questions of McClatchy journalists? Or, does “Some say” suffice for them, but not a blog? Please buy another record!

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should name Pruitt’s sinking ship, ‘The Big Flush’? His hand is still on the tiller, the BOD oldies party on, the shareholders gasp for air, and the employees seek guidance counseling.
Time for a new Rolling Stones tune Pru.

John Altevogt said...

A Soviet agent criticizing both Democrats and Republicans would hardly be an example of objectivity.

Anonymous said...

***A Soviet agent criticizing both Democrats and Republicans would hardly be an example of objectivity.***

I believe that if you do some research using independent sources you'll find that there are serious doubts about what the accuser meant by "Soviet agent." You DID do some independent research, didn't you, rather than just repeat the accusation because it fit your political agenda?

John Altevogt said...

Yes, I went to Moscow and searched the KGB archives - not. You people are shameless. Mendacious Consciousness strikes again. No matter what the evidence, no matter how well known the fact, just keep lying your ass off on the stray chance that someone out there is actually as dumb as you think they are. After all, it did work for quite a while.

John Altevogt said...

This is actually even funnier than when their serial rapist, he of the stinky cigar and the tubby intern claimed that it all depended on what the meaning of is is.

In actuality, Stone was trying to book the Soviet Army into New York so they could do the Ed Sullivan Show. Who knew? 10% commission he gets on the whole damn Soviet Army when they appear in New York. He was a talent agent, not a spy. My heavens, why didn't I think to look up what the accuser meant when he said Stone was a Soviet agent? Oh Lord, my ribs hurt, you guys got to stop with this crap.

"Hey Ed, look, the whole damned army on your show for a couple of decades only. After that you get booking rights for all of the occupied territories. Really. Yeah, I got exclusive booking rights, I'm their agent."

Anonymous said...

Indeed, these trolls are shamless.

Cue the, "MW used to a good site, but now it's turned into blah, blah, blah, blah."

Yawn. So predictable.

Anonymous said...

Proof proof I tell you!!! I demand that every poster here who has a conservative opinion provide mountains of proof that the grass is green. I demand that you spend hours researching each comment on someone else blog. I demand this only from the non leftie posters because I am only interested in suppressing speech, not in listening to points of view that differ from my own

Anonymous said...

Fatuous: Inanely foolish
Yes that is exactly the right word for the silly poster who demands proof of every comments he dislikes as a way of controlling the conversation.