It’s just so obvious that the Democrats are almost always right!

The newsroom culture is so terribly ideologically inbred, that watching the news reminds me of volunteering to help out at a talent show for the mentally disabled.

I feel like I should be saying “great job! you’re wonderful! what a performance!” instead of “you moron! I can’t believe you’re that stupid! that’s not even close to true!”

I feel guilty when I cuss out the moronic newsreaders, like I found myself jeering at the athletes at the special olympics.

John Stossel’s appearance at the press club was a great enunciation of that, as well as Bernard Goldberg’s books “Bias” and “Arrogance.” They, far more gently than I would, give us an inside look at the way the “shared ideals” of the MSM workplaces have made them some of the least diverse, in terms of ideas, places in the world, and why it’s so hard for many reporters to see (and impossible to admit).

I think, if the MSM wants to get back any of that last trust, they’d better commit to a policy of ideological diversity in the workplace, and quick.

Right now, if you want trustworthy news, you really have to work hard for it. Maybe that’s the way it should be, but it means that most people are working off bad information most of the time, because they can’t afford a second career as a researcher.

It is Murtha’s job to defend his own policies. But I’d prefer not to hand his opponents ammunition in the form of evocative but loaded language…

There’s that non-liberal bias again.

The reason slow bleed, and it doesn’t matter if satan himself came up with the word, it is the ideal descriptive. “Slow strangulation”, doesn’t have that ring.

How about taking back the words “balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class”. Here is where remorse kicks in. As happens all the time in journalism, this was a decision — made on the fly and under deadline…

“Or Bush lied, soldiers died”.

I have an idea, quit writting, or turn over your writing to the DNC for apporoval.

Hmm.. Does this mean I have to change my video?

Nethicus on March 1, 2007 at 1:03 AM

Don’t change a thing. Great vid–great message.

This is interesting how the media reacts to Democrat complaints to the drive by media.
A reporter reports something, and it doesn’t take long before Democrats are demanding mea culpa’s corrections, additions or retractions.

Rush mentioned the other day how an AP reporter changed a story on the supposed Democrat Iraq war plan from what was originally posted. Rush didn’t go far enough.

I blogged about it here with comparisons between the three versions of the articles posted, showing what was added or what entire paragraphs were removed. It looks clear the story was changed after some irate calls from Democrats since the additions to the later versions were all their excuses or positions on their “plan”.

Seems the drive by media moves fast when a Democrat calls.

That’s where I come in. “Slow bleed” is my phrase. Murtha had nothing to do with it.

Sounds like someone was “ordered” to fall on his sword…..

As they backtrack to get back into favor with the Democrats….

The enemedia hate it when they screw up and inadvertently tell the truth, thereby making Democrats look as bad as they deserve.

ReubenJCogburn on February 28, 2007 at 6:09 PM

RJC, you nailed it, my brother!
Cheers!

Bresnahan’s article was the only source cited for the RNC’s claims, though Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, was apparently the first to use the “slow-bleed” construction to characterize the reported strategy of the House Democratic leadership.

From Lizza’s appearance on the February 13 edition of MSNBC’s Scarborough Country:

LIZZA: And look, they’re reading the same polls that we’re all reading, and they realize that the American public doesn’t quite — there’s not a big majority for defunding the troops, so it doesn’t look like the Democratic leadership is going to go there. Instead, what you’re going to have is a strategy led by Murtha, which is going to be to limit the number of troops available to President Bush by putting some restrictions on what troops will be allowed to be brought over to Iraq.

So that’s the strategy that the — that’s the sort of two-part strategy: first, this non-binding resolution, and then restricting what troops Bush can use. So, it’s a sort of — a slow bleeding of our ability to do much more in Iraq

Here is where remorse kicks in

Eh, the truth hurts buddy. Suck it up.

We’ve had two decades of “Star Wars” missile defense. I say “slow bleed” stays.

Try and work in a “Shazam!” tomorrow, please?

You know, if you don’t like the site, you don’t have to read it. No offense will be taken, I promise.

Oh, and I’ll stop calling it slow bleed as soon as the democrats stop calling a retreat from battle a “redeployment.”

That’s my quota!

Try and work in a “Shazam!” tomorrow, please?