January 29, 2013
— Ace Well, I guess that's why he calls himself the Gay Patriot West.
I don't know... I'm linking this because I think optimism is a Good Thing and I'd sure like everyone to feel good (including myself) but....
He will not longer be able to use that issue (i.e., tax the rich) against Republicans as effectively as he did in the campaign.
Well sure, anytime you completely lose on an issue your opponent can't use it against you as much. (But note only "as much" -- he can still say "These Republicans, who argued for tax breaks for billionaires...")
DOCTOR: I've got some good news, and some bad news.
PATIENT: Let me have the bad news first.
DOCTOR: You're going to be dead in three days.
PATIENT: Dead in three days? What's the good news?
DOCTOR: I'm banging your wife.
PATIENT: You're having an affair with my wife?
DOCTOR: Banging. I wouldn't dignify it as "an affair."
PATIENT: Well then you're banging my wife! How is the hell is that remotely good news?!
DOCTOR: You've got bigger things to worry about. How I envy you your perspective.
DOCTOR: Anal, too.
— Ace Personally I think this ship has sailed. It's true, but the ship has sailed.
Americans' most cherished right is to be fat, dumb, lazy, entitled, selfish and cowardly without anyone making them "feel bad" about it.
Anyway, Carolla says something here that made me laugh out loud so I'll quote it. (Also, I need a fresh post.)
I say good, Carolla declared. Thats all we have. Thats all we have ever had, is as a society. I mean, there are not enough counselors or dietitians or cops. We have to shame. I would like to expand the shaming to welfare moms and deadbeat dads and people who think its a good idea to fly in flip flops. I want shaming. It keeps society in order.
O'Reilly wondered if there wasn't any exception for compassion. Carolla had none of it.
Well, listen, I think they are going to get beat up by society no matter what, Carolla replied. I mean, prom season is not great when youre fat. And dating is tough. And even job interviews. I mean, society gets its pound of flesh out of these people. But, eventually when there is more of them than there are of us, they will literally crush us. This way, if you think about it theyre going to take over the world with their enormity.
Laughed out loud.
Speaking of which, apparently some plus-sized model* can now claim the world's record for world's biggest hips -- eight feet around.
Sir Mix-A-Lot just issued a public apology and retraction.
* Is she really a model? What does she model -- sandwiches?
I Just Realized... Ever see a Star Wars A-Wing fighter?
Except chunkier in the engines.
— Ace I'll be participating in the launch. A bunch of other good people are involved:
Iowahawk, David Webb, Javier Manjarres of Shark Tank, DocZero, Nice Deb, Jerome Hudson, Lisa De Pasquale, William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, and Adam Baldwin, along with John Nolte, Ben Shapiro, Larry O'Connor, Sonnie Johnson, Liberty Chick, Jon David Kahn, as well as other writers and contributors from Breitbart News.
The idea (which I was interested in for years, and still am) is trying something a bit more conversational, like the old Corner. Less a blog and more an interaction.
I had an observation about this. The observation begins with the question: Why do people like debates? After all, as far as an information-per-second delivery mechanism, print essays provide much more data. Also, essays present the argument it its best, most-polished form -- which may or may not happen in a debate, depending on the debater's skill at rhetoric.
So why watch them? Well, I think because real-time interactions present something absent in controlled-environment carefully-vetted essays: drama. Someone could score a point, someone could be humiliated. A real-time interaction adds a human interest to the strictly logical/intellectual interest of an essay.
I know we, as conservatives, like to knock drama, as something that The Other Team goes for, but human beings are natural, intuitive storytellers (and story-consumers) and respond to drama no matter what our intellectual aversions to it might be.
If we weren't story-centered creatures, we wouldn't bother with NASCAR races or track and field competitions -- we'd just have everyone singly run and record their best possible time, at at time most convenient to them, and then dryly compare race results when they all came in.
Boring, huh? And you can say that's because "the ability to directly compete/muscle out other racers is part of the skill we call racing," and that's true, but it's something else, too: It's because one human being directly contending with another, with a clear and obvious stake at risk (money, fame... survival) is inherently compelling.
Now that I've nattered on about this, no, I don't think people yapping at each other in a forum is as exciting as a race; and it won't even be a debate, most of the time. (But it will still be a competition; life always is.)
I'm just noting that it's the presence of that human factor that tends to make a debate a public spectacle, with cheering and harumphs, whereas reading an essay is something you do alone, with much less cheering (though there may be the occasional soft harumph). And the real-time thing adds something -- something that seems to be spur-of-the-moment is always more impressive than something planned and written.
David Letterman used to pre-script jokes but deliver them as if he was just thinking of them -- he got more laughs that way. People appreciated he'd "just thought of that" -- even though he hadn't.
What the bloody hell am I talking about? Man I just do go on and on and on. Someone should say something to me about that.
So, anyway, I'm glad that Breitbart's trying it.
In case you're worried I'm going to be on Breitbart all day: Nope, I'll be here most of the time. It's a side-thing. I like talking to you guys.
To the extent it reduces my online presence in other ways -- it will reduce my use of Twitter. Rather than posting something on Twitter during the ONT hours, I'd just post it at The Conversation. Twitter's fun and all but it really does me no personal good to spread my pearls of wisdom and hate (but mostly hate) on someone else's platform. I don't really interact much on twitter anyway (I'm wary of inventing additional time-sucks for myself), so I won't be disappointing too many people who follow me there.
There's one additional advantage about being on Breitbart's official comments site: That I will be reading Breitbart's comments section, but not the actual posts.
— Ace What could have been.
Texas' constitution does not permit the state to simply refund unneeded tax collections, and he's asking for an amendment permitting that. Due to holding the line on spending and near-the-best-in-the-country growth, they've got a surplus.
Perry, who is scheduled to deliver the speech Tuesday morning to a joint session of the Legislature, will tell lawmakers that he has never bought into the notion that if you collect more, you need to spend more.
I know he threw up on himself (as Brit Hume said) at the debates, and just rubbed people the wrong way on hot-buttons like immigration. (He rubbed me the wrong we there, too!)
But you do see why I was a fan, I trust.
— Ace The money shot of the video is at 15:20, when the guy -- a grieving parent of a son murdered at Newtown -- demands to know what possible reason anyone could offer that AR-15s should be legal.
At first you might think this is a rhetorical question; the audience in fact takes it as rhetorical, and doesn't answer. Then he scans around the room, looking for someone to answer, and, as everyone's silent, concludes, as he'd intended, that no one has a good answer.
At that point, people realize that their respectful silence is being taken for assent, and they begin chiming in "The second amendment."
The media's claim? he was callously "heckled" and interrupted while speaking.
Oh, and from plonked, even more proof of Obama's passion for Doing Skeet.
You may use this photographic proof in your magazine if you pay a license (to be negotiated later) to the photographer, Uncle Jefe.
Roland Martin, obese of thought as well as of body, says that it's anti-American to ask our leaders to prove that what they say is true.
— Ace TNR's risible goof -- failing to see that Obama was obviously using body-English to psychically influence another one of his many-thousand golf shots, in a hilarious p-shop -- isn't just all fun and games.
It illustrates the blind spots and double standards and political biases of the "objective" press.
Any statement which helps Obama is deemed presumptively true by liberals. No fact-checking needed, no skepticism applied; if it helps Obama, then it must be true, right? After all, Obama's right, ergo, claims which demonstrate he's right have a higher-than-usual chance of themselves being right. Right?
And of course any statement which hurts Obama is deemed presumptively false-- even if it appears superficially true, it's time to put on your skepticism hats and start parsing like the Dickens, to find that fundamental falsity which you're sure lurks somewhere inside it.
You can see this effect in full, uhhh, effect in the various "Fact Checking" columns the liberal press uses to attack Republicans.
Democratic statements tend to only be evaluated on their superficial truthfulness (or truthiness, to use a term I've never liked, but it's useful here). If Obama makes a claim, and on its most superficial reading it's got "truthiness" to it -- even though it's being used in service of making a very tendentious point -- then the Fact Checkers rate it as true.
They presumed it true from the start, and it passed the most superficial once-over, so they're comfortable now calling it "True."
But if a Republican makes a statement about Obama... well then a whole different process is employed.
Now, the statement is presumed false -- and the game is now to simply discover in what way it's false. And you do know, ab initio, it's false -- after all, a Republican said it. Gotta be false.
So now, if you find a Republican statement about Obama that is superficially true, you now have to consider all the implications that may or may not flow from it. And if you can find one implication of the true statement which you deem to be false (or at least arguable), then you now proceed to branding the entire statement "false."
After all, the statement may have been true, but it may mislead you into thinking something else, so the statement is False. *
Glenn Kessler, Politifact, and the rest of the liberal liars never apply this second- or third-order analysis of possible implications when it comes to a superficially true Democratic statement. If the Democrats claim that Paul Ryan "cosponsored" a bill with Todd Akin, for example, they'll label that as "True." They don't bother examining the intended implications of that, such as "Paul Ryan has the same crude beliefs as Todd Akin" and "Paul Ryan hates women." **
Democrats are permitted their untrue implications. Republicans, on the other hand, are not permitted their own tendentious implications.
Or even implications that aren't even fairly present in their claim. The liberal fact-checkers will check, and re-check, and sur-check until they can find something, some tendentious implication, that they don't like, at which point they label the initial statement "false" or "misleading," precisely as they had intended before even bothering to fire up the Google machine.
TNR's goof here (apparently duplicated by the brain trust at Buzzfeed) is superficially laughable -- until you realize the mindset that produced it (and will continue to produce the same error until the end of time itself) is no laughing matter at all.
This stupidity -- this dishonesty -- this low-order conclusion-driven do-not-question-assumptions herd-thinking -- actually shapes our country's political trajectory and ultimately affects our individual fates.
* This is the reason for the well-known, and completely true, phenomenon that parroting back the tendentious claims of your professor will get you a better grade, and disputing his claims will get you a worse one.
When you agree with him, he presumes you're right (after all, you're agreeing with him) and you don't have to bring much evidence or argument to the table to convince him of that which he already believes.
But when you disagree with him -- why, now, he's going to want to see each of your subsidiary premises demonstrated with citations and he'll brook no sloppy logic as you press them.
The media is a liberal professor, and Obama is -- as he's been throughout his life -- the lazy and yet dutifully doctrinaire Apple of the Professor's Eye, gifted with the ability to tell them that which they believed without needing to be told.
And they give him straight A+'s, of course. Only occasionally docking a point here or there just to show they're "fair."
And anyone who disagrees with the Liberal Professor -- well, if you write a sumptuously-cited, impeccably-argued refutation of his beliefs, he'll give you a very grudging B-. Anything short of that and you're looking at a C, D, or F.
** And speaking of Todd Akin -- it was just this sort of thinking (if a claim supports another claim I think is true, that first claim must most likely be true as well) that got him into trouble, and exposed him as a conclusion-driven illogical dummy.
And yet the same liberal press that savaged him for this sort of conclusion-driven non-thinking engages it in with every firing of every synapse.
— Ace No liberal bias at the new TNR.
Also, no functioning bullshit detector. At least not when it comes to the Lamb of Chicago.
The picture posted -- "proving" Obama "does skeet" (as Obama says) -- is pretty funny.
I trust you all know what that's really a picture of.
— Ace The executives had run GM and AIG so well that they had to come begging to the government for billions in subsidies and direct gifts.
So of course they should have massive million-dollar raises.
And of course Timothy Geithner's Treasury Department should approve those raises.
Ggovernment report Monday criticized the U.S. Treasury Department for approving excessive salaries and raises at firms that received taxpayer-funded bailouts during the financial crisis.
The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said Treasury approved all 18 requests it received last year to raise pay for executives at American International Group Inc., General Motors Corp. and Ally Financial Inc. Of those requests, 14 were for $100,000 or more; the largest raise was $1 million.
Treasury also allowed pay packages totaling $5 million or more for nearly a quarter of the executives at those firms, the report says.
The report says Treasury bypassed rules under the 2008 bailout that limited pay. Treasury approved raises that exceeded pay limits and in some cases failed to link compensation to performance, it notes.
The rules stated that executives at bailed-out companies could not receive pay higher than the fiftieth percentile of CEO's in non-bailed out companies (that is, they could not be paid as if they were in the top half of executives).
But most executives in bailed-out companies -- 63% -- received pay at or above that level.
The woman who approved these pay rates called the rule a mere "benchmark."
Consider the fact that incentives and disincentives matter, and control behavior. Consider the fact that Treasury is now approving CEO payments in the top half of all executive compensation for executives at companies the taxpayers bailed out.
So what would be the incentive and disincentive structure here, as regards getting government bail-outs? There is hardly any disincentive for an executive to lobby the government for bail-outs and for a fusion of his company with the government -- he can still get paid what the top half of non-balled-out executives are paid.
It's an advertisement for corporatism, isn't it?
There's a process by which "accident" becomes so close to deliberate intent it's almost not worth arguing about the semantics of it. Plainly, Timothy Geithner thinks that corporate welfare, like the regular sort of individual welfare, is nothing to be ashamed about taking, and not the sort of thing we should penalize people for taking.
As with individual welfare, corporations should be encouraged to apply for government benefits, for those times when, goshdarnit, they just can't quite make ends meet.
Sometimes we just need to give an executive at a bailed-out company an extra million dollars per year just to make sure he has heating and food. And birth control, probably.
Compassion (TM). Try it!
— JohnE. The plural of anecdote is not data, as they say. However, in my recent trips to gun shows and outdoor sporting goods stores, I've noticed a large number of new buyers. I'm beginning to wonder if much of this increased demand is being driven by the non-gun owning 2nd Amendment supporter. I've overheard a lot of "I've never owned a gun before and I don't know which one to get, but I want to buy a gun today" to salesmen at shops and shows in recent months.
Longtime gun owners are getting into the action as well, of course. But this is nothing that many of us have ever seen before. Even the Clinton-era push didn't produce this level of demand.
What we're witnessing isn't just a run on specific models that might catch a ban in proposed legislation. The ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 is getting hard to find. The only way this particular model finds itself on a banned list is if we're approaching an all-out nationwide gun ban. And yet, it's flying off the shelves.
Have you checked ammunition supplies recently? You might expect .223 to be hard to find right now, and it is. But the absolute disappearance of .22lr rounds? Unheard of. Check your local outdoor sporting goods store. The shelves are absolutely picked clean.
This leads me to believe that there is a lot of new demand from people that feel like they need to get their hands on something right now. I suspect that Obama has always wanted to drive the non-gun owning pro-2A segment of the populace to extinction; I just don't think he expected to turn them into gun owners.
What do the morons think?
[Update] For those asking for help shopping for your first gun, I highly recommend Bob Owens' e-book, So You Want To Own A Gun. $0.99 well spent.
— DrewM Language is very important in politics. The earliest stage of a political fight is often the fight to gain control of the terms used in the debate. Supporters of the bland sounding Comprehensive Immigration Reform really dont like it when opponents call their various schemes amnesty. Why? No one wants to be seen as rewarding criminal behavior even when thats EXACTLY what they are doing. So supporters of amnesty will go to great lengths and intellectual contortions to make sure no one dares use that term.
Take a look at how Marco Rubio, one of the key figures in the most recent amnesty push, phrases the argument.
We have de facto amnesty right now
No we dont.
If we did, why are we going through this whole process in the first place? If we had de facto amnesty, we wouldnt hear about how hard it is for illegal immigrants to live in the shadows. If we had de facto amnesty, we wouldnt be deporting anyone. If we had de facto amnesty, there wouldnt be a thriving black market for illicit work documents and identity theft.
Amnesty supporters will tell you it cant be amnesty because illegal immigrants will say there are "tough but fair" penalties for illegal immigrants such as paying a fine of some sort, have to pay back taxes and go to the back of the line behind those waiting to come here legally for permanent residency and citizenship.
The last bit is particularly deceitful. The back of the line language is designed to make it sound like a real penalty is being imposed on illegals. The reality according to amnesty supporter Chuck Schumer is they would get big rewards up front with no penalties of any sort.
"On day one of our bill, the people without status who are not criminals or security risks will be able to live and work here legally."
According to Rubio, the "penalties" will come years down the road when illegal aliens apply for green cards.
As for the path to citizenship, as Rubio explained when he rolled out his ideas a couple of weeks ago, the senators envision a temporary legal status and then the opportunity to obtain a green card, upon payment of back taxes, learn English, and a background check among other requirements. (Although there was no mention of Rubios suggestions for fines or community services is made.) The path to citizenship provisions also emphasize that none of the illegal immigrants could jump ahead of those who have legally been pursuing a green card.
In short...illegals will gain immediate legal status upon enactment of the law with no penalty until some unidentified time far off in the future. How is that not amnesty? Until we see the actual legislation, we don't even know if illegals will have to apply for a green card or citizenship. It's very possible whatever category of visa they get upon passage of the scheme will entitle them to stay for as long as they want.
— Gabriel Malor Happy Tuesday.
France is "totally bankrupt," says the French labour minister. Hollande's government is now denying it vigorously, saying the labour minister "mispoke," but the flight of French capital from Hollande's insanely huge taxes is unmistakeable. I love the picture the Telegraph chose to illustrate this article.
Rasmussen finds just 36 percent now identify as "pro-life," down from 43 percent in January 2012. Thank you, Rep. Akin.
Lucasfilm (now under the control of Disney) is cancelling the 3D re-releases of the previous movies, thank God.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is sending the state's new right-to-work law directly to the state Supreme Court for review. Unions were shopping around for their favorite lower court judges to stay the law pending review, so Snyder decided to moot that process and ask the Supremes to make with the final ruling already. Republicans currently have a 4-2 majority on the state Supreme Court, after a Democratic justice "retired" last month upon discovery of her extensive money laundering and property fraud.
State Department office to close Guantanamo closes before Guantanamo does.
January 28, 2013
Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection isn't giving up:
I have not given in to all the doom and gloom, although it's hard not to. There is a deliberate effort to declare the Republican Party, conservatives, and the Tea Party movement over. Operation Demoralize never stops.
And often the effects of demoralization are far worse than any particular defeat. You can recover from losses but not from an internal defeat of the spirit.
And Joe Engel follows up on this:
As tempting as it is sometimes to compare our inept and feckless Republican leaders to Marshal Pétain and his Vichy toadies, that only highlights how unwarranted the demoralization is.
Because for all our despair and disappointment, life in America 2013 is hardly comparable to life in Casablanca 1942. Those who were caught in hegemonic limbo never knew whether today was the day they'd be rounded up as one of the "usual suspects" and pay the ultimate price as an enemy of the German state.
Yet even while the movie Casablanca was being shot through the summer of '42, the Allied invasion of North Africa was being plotted, culminating that November in Morocco's liberation.So here, be inspired. And sing loud-louder than they do. We're all Victor Laszlo now.
I'm shocked, shocked that demoralization is taking place in this establishment.more...
— CAC A few nights ago, a moment of inspiration filled me with a serious question...
what if we are already dead, and this is all just a flashback?more...
— Ace Indeed.
Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.
It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are trapped.
They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.
The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they cant go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.
The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.
We can pour moral scorn on them, but they'll ignore the moral scorn and just keep taking the $2400 per month (or whatever) benefits.
If you're paying someone to do a job, they're going to do that job, because they have to do that job to stay alive. Moral scorn won't deter them. And in this case, England -- and the US, too -- is hiring people to sit in their apartments and collect checks from taxpayers.
And so they're going to keep doing that job, aren't they?
Even Bill Maher noted this, in his inimitable style (by which I mean not funny, and also not perceptive). And yet, he still finally got around to wondering that if we continue escalating benefits for the nonworking, gee willickers, doesn't that mean the working will have to pay a lot more?
Solvency, generous government benefits, a social order that no longer penalizes people for engaging in costly behaviors they can't pay for, but rather encourages them to do what thou will: Choose any two.
— CAC Definitely no peaking this time.
January 29, 2013
— andy A reminder of the mindset we're dealing with on guns appears below the fold. more...
January 28, 2013
— Ace Why does every establishment news organization, supposedly unique in its mission of providing "truth" to its audience, make it its core mission to lie to the customer?
The new New Republic claims it will be free of party ideology or partisan bias. I honestly dont know exactly what Hughes means by this, but it strikes me as a very bad start. A New Republic that is liberalism-free has no reason to exist (much as a National Review that is conservatism-free is pointless). A liberal New Republic that pretends its free of liberalism while it attempts to advance liberalism is a huge step backwards. After all, why should the reader trust a bunch of committed liberal opinion journalists if they cant even be honest about what they are or what they are trying to do?
If the first thing out of someone's mouth is a childish and stupid lie -- not even a clever one, not the sort of lie that makes you think "Oh my that's wicked" -- why stick around for the second thing?
Based on that interview with Obama, Id say Hughes is not striving that hard or hes not good at what hes striving to do or most likely he only wants to appeal to Democrats, so he only wants to do enough to seem to be free of party ideology and partisan bias to Democrats. Is this enough to make our target audience feel good about the nourishment theyre getting from this source? The good feeling is some combination of seeming like professional journalism while satisfying their emotional needs that are intertwined their political ideology and love of party.
Looks like TNR has decided to be Catfish: The Magazine.
Yeah I don't really know what Catfish is either but I'm informed it's a Topical Reference Which Will Appeal to the Youth Demographic. I made the grotesque error of watching part of Saturday Night Live this week (I remembered it even existed) and found them referencing it in their inimitable style, by which I mean, it wasn't funny.
— Ace Instant amnesty in exchange for... eventual border protection, according to a plan cooked up by seven "veteran amnesty supporters" plus Marco Rubio.
Instant amnesty, in exchange for nothing but a promise?
The amnesty is instant and the border controlling will never come.
Liberals are assuring other liberals that the "border control" elements of this plan are in fact a sham to provide some cover to Republicans.
Supposedly a commission will determine if border control has proceeded sufficiently so that the second tranche of the deal can go through (full citizenship), but...
As Sharry [an amnesty advocate who supports the plan] put it, Democrats realize that they cant allow the commission to have a real veto over setting in motion the path to citizenship. He noted that Dems see the commission as something that gives the Republicans a talking point to claim they are prioritizing tough enforcement, giving themselves cover to back a process that wont stop people from getting citizenship. However, Sharry added: The details of this are going to matter hugely, and well have to fight like hell on the individual provisions.
That said, Sharry concluded: This is a left of center framework.
Ross Douthat observed on Twitter that the GOP is rushing heedlessly to increase the vote share of Latinos, without doing anything else to actually attract them as voters.
And, in fact, as a party we can't do anything to attract the majority of them as voters -- they're pro-government, pro-welfare-state, and all the rest.
They're also increasingly pro-choice and liberal on social matters.
So after we extend citizenship and voting rights to 11 million Government Clients, what's Step 2 of our master plan?
Maybe this is our plan for destroying ObamaCare.
Comprehensive immigration reform could make millions of people suddenly eligible for assistance under President Obamas healthcare law, assuming a final deal paves the way for undocumented immigrants to receive papers.
We have to figure out a way in which [undocumented immigrants] incorporate themselves into the larger workforce, and into our society in general, and not be a burden, said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), a leader in the immigration debate.
Do we want them to go to the exchanges? Absolutely we do if and when they dont have healthcare through their employer, he said.
— Ace As Marion Ravenwood said, "Must've slipped his mind."
The man is nefarious.
Martha Raddatz, the latest ABC "reporter" to pass up on the story, is a woman, but the quote's about a man, so.
And speaking of the state-run media, apparently 60 Minutes ran a particularly soft double-interview with Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Kirstin Powers calls it propaganda you'd expect to see from a "state-run media."
Something occurred to me: The preference cascade I was talking about did happen. But it's happened in the press. They feel empowered, they feel history is on their side, they feel the audience is inclining to the liberal position, and so they're not hiding it anymore.
Which, of course, suggests that the very limited amount of Hiding It they did was not for purposes of ethics, but simply for pecuniary reasons; that is, they pretended a little bit simply to not lose parts of the audience.
But, as Instapundit has noted, "ethics" pretends to be some sort of code that provides hygiene to the industry whereas, in fact, "ethics" are usually created precisely to protect the industry, and cover up its excesses.
The media claims, for example, that "ethics" preclude them from revealing their voting histories and their politics, because revealing such would compromise their objectivity.
Bullshit. Their objectivity is already compromised. Objectivity is compromised by bias; it is not compromised by the admission of bias. In fact, the admission of bias increases partiality. Hiding one's bias is dishonest as a first matter but then further creates an environment in which honesty is denigrated, and thus leads to further dishonesty.
The industries have imposed this rule not to serve the public better but to withhold from the public crucial information, which information, while helpful and important to the public in evaluating media reports, would hurt the media itself. That is, if CNN admitted it was liberal, it would in fact be providing more helpful, useful information to its audience, but some of that audience might stop watching it.
This "rule" is a complete lie, and an indefensible one. The "ethical rule" only exists to deceive the public and is directly contrary to the interests of the public; the only beneficiary of this "ethical rule" is the industry itself.
So I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that the media is now treating an "ethical rule," supposedly dictated by non-self-interested considerations, as what it always was, a simple matter of self-interest.
And since they think they won't be punished, market-wise, for showing some more liberal leg, boy are they showing it.
42 queries taking 3.8683 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.