Tag Archives: article

CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Conservative Talk Show Hosts are Uneducated

On Friday’s Rick’s List, CNN’s Rick Sanchez attacked conservative economic policy, singling out the right’s support for lower tax rates, and complained that ” we in America are so easily led to go against our own interests …. you would find that at least half…[are] pulling for the rich guy.” Sanchez also belittled conservative talk show hosts: ” Many…don’t even have a college degree .” The anchor led the 3 pm Eastern hour with a rant against ” these guys on talk radio, some of whom make hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars ” and their defense of “the money guys…the super-rich, night in and night out- you know who I’m talking about- you will hear this and you have heard this consistent narrative. We’re being held back by high taxes in this country, high tax rates- cut taxes on the wealthy and, zoom, there it goes. Our economy is going to be back with a vengeance. Get the government off our backs and all our problems in this country are going to be solved.” Sanchez then caricatured the conservative take on the present economic situation and, unsurprising, introduced race into the issue. He also targeted CNBC personality and Tea Party hero Rick Santelli: SANCHEZ: And, by the way, the mess we’re still digging out from: it’s not Wall Street’s fault, not a thing to do with the government turning a blind eye to the high-rolling financial shenanigans of some people on Wall Street. No, not at all. It’s the poor people’s fault, who brought the rest of us to our knees, mostly, by the way- I know you hear this- I know you hear this- mostly minorities, them Hispanics and them blacks who bought the homes that they couldn’t afford. They defaulted on those loans, and then we all went down, by golly. Do you think I’m kidding about this? Look, here’s one of the biggest media darlings of this message . RICK SANTELLI (from MSNBC’s “Hardball”): Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages? SANCHEZ: This guy’s a superstar now. That’s right, superstar: ‘losers.’ Remember that? If you lose your job and you end up defaulting on your mortgage, you are a loser. That was the rant that fueled, in many ways, the Tea Party movement. Quit subsidizing the losers, America. How did the CNN anchor refute Santelli and “these guys on the radio”? He turned to the left-wing New York Times: SANCHEZ: Now, let me show you something else. I want to show you- hey, Rob, are you good there. Where’s the newspaper? I want to bring you in the newspaper that I had here just a moment ago. Here it is. Here’s The New York Times. All right? What’s that say? Can you see it? Biggest defaulters on mortgages are the rich. So, who are the losers? Hispanics? Minorities? Black people who bought more home than they could really afford? Once again, let’s look at this. The biggest defaulters on mortgages are the rich…more than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of $1 million are seriously delinquent, okay? Now, let’s look at the rest of us, people like you and me. About one in 12 mortgages below the $1 million mark is delinquent. Who are the losers again? Who are the losers again, Mr. Santelli, or whatever your name is? Okay, the article goes on to say, though it’s hard to prove, the data suggests that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially-draining properties. They’re doing this on purpose. You know what? I don’t want it. I will dump it, just as they would any other sour investment. Fine, but let’s be clear. The rich aren’t paying their mortgages, and at a higher rate than anyone else. Sanchez then set up a straw man of the conservative position on taxes: SANCHEZ: I want to make a point about taxes now. To hear the narrative out there, you would think that we’re the highest taxed nation on the planet, in the history of the planet. You hear it every day on your way home. Just turn on your radio, folks. In fact, there’s another list out there I want to show you, of the top 30 industrial nations in the world. Where do you think the United States ranks? Now, you hear every single day we’re the most taxed country in the world, no question about it. And it’s all these politicians and the government. And where do you think we are? Of all the developed countries in the world, where do you think we are, as far as the tax rate? Where do you think we are? Twenty-sixth- twenty-sixth out of thirty. That’s according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development- twenty-sixth out of thirty. Again, here’s the list. Here’s my highlight marks that I have put right there. You see it.  We are right after- here, I’ll tell you. Who comes before us? Switzerland, Mexico and Australia. Who comes after us? Ireland, Luxembourg, Iceland, and New Zealand. After mouthing the left’s consistent talking point that “the rich have gotten…richer, the poor…poorer,” the anchor brought on Georgia Tech Professor Danny Boston, who agreed that the New York Times statistic “debunks the stereotype” on the economy. Later, Sanchez returned to his tax straw man and bemoaned how so many people hold the economic conservative position: SANCHEZ: We hear we’re the most taxed country in the world. That seems to show that maybe we really aren’t. We’re 26th of the 30 developing [sic] nations. We hear that it was the poor people who bought too many homes that they couldn’t afford. Now, we’ve got a statistic saying, no, that’s not true. In fact, it’s the rich who have been the most delinquent and defaulted on their mortgages. It’s like statistic after statistic seems to- why is it that we in America are so easily led to go against our own interests? Because- and you know what I mean by that. Most of the people who are super rich in this country are- what, 1 percent? Then there’s 99 percent of the rest of us, and yet, if you look at studies politically and sociologically, you would find that at least half of that 99 percent is pulling for the rich guy , and saying- oh, yes, it’s not his fault, it’s our fault. Near the end of the segment, the CNN anchor took a conservative talking point against President Obama and applied it to Professor Boston, as a set up to launch his attack on conservative talk show hosts: SANCHEZ: Well- you know, a lot of the folks who would criticize someone like you- they would criticize you, first of all, because you’re a college professor, which, in their mind, makes you overeducated, and thus, stupid. But is that something that’s frustrating as well, that you know this stuff and can explain it as easily as you just did to us, but yet, t he people who are really leading the charge in this country are the guys on the radio and- many of which don’t even have a college degree . Well, Mr. Sanchez, as you demonstrated yourself, you can have a college degree and still make mistakes about basic geography, such as when you misidentified the Galapagos Islands as Hawaii during CNN’s live coverage of the February 27, 2010 earthquake in Chile.

More here:
CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Conservative Talk Show Hosts are Uneducated

Video: John Holdren Says Lets Use Cap and Trade Taxes to Give Money to Other Countries

The Obama administration’s top science advisor, John Holdren, was caught on tape advocating for global wealth redistribution back in 2008. In this clip, unearthed by Eyeblast.tv, Holdren says that we should use tax revenue from a cap and trade type bill to pay other countries in the global south. Make sure you read this article from CNSNews.com for more details on Holdren’s radical views.

Read more from the original source:
Video: John Holdren Says Lets Use Cap and Trade Taxes to Give Money to Other Countries

Marisa Miller Is Pure Perfection

Here are a few more pictures of supermodel Marisa Miller from the FHM article about how hot she is and how it’s next to impossible for me to ever get my private parts anywhere near anything as remotely spectacular this. Obviously that’s not what the article is about, but it might as well be, this woman is incredible. This is exactly how I imagined Marisa would do chores like water the lawn, do the dishes and make spaghetti… In some tiny boner inducing lingerie. She’s too perfect.

ABCNews.com Credits Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac for ‘Propping Up’ Housing Market

Apparently, Fannie and Freddie are the new Batman and Robin. At least they seemed more like heroes than villains in a July 6 ABC News story about the troubled housing market. Reporter Rich Blake gave the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac credit for “propping up” the flailing housing sector: “As perplexing and disturbing as this economic brainteaser may seem, the housing sector would be in even worse shape if not for those twin government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both in government conservatorship and bleeding assets,” Blake wrote. Blake was downbeat about the situation saying, “Such a scenario, a housing market propped up by Fannie and Freddie, several economic experts admit glumly, is akin to running a power plant on an auxiliary generator that is jumper-cabled to a car running on fumes.” He even noted that Fannie and Freddie are 79.9 percent owned by the federal government and 20.1 percent owned by the public, but he didn’t mention how much the two GSEs could cost taxpayers. So far, the pair have cost roughly $160 billion, but according to Bloomberg could run up to nearly $1 trillion . Furthermore, Blake wrote how Republican critics “immediately blasted” the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill for not addressing any of the GSEs problems but conceded that “no one on either side of the aisle has much to offer by way of solution:” “Too big to fail, and too broke to fix,” he concluded. Blake, like others in the media, didn’t bring up Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-Ala.) closing statement on financial reform in May when Shelby addressed Republican efforts to cap and reform Fannie and Freddie. He buried proposals for a private sector solution until the fourteenth paragraph and waited until the eighteenth paragraph to quote Gilbert Leistner of the Chicago Board of Trade who proposed “euthanizing them.” The news media have recently ignored the cost of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s bailout, after years of ignoring the scandals and other problems at the two GSEs . Like this article?   Sign up   for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

Read the original here:
ABCNews.com Credits Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac for ‘Propping Up’ Housing Market

Gore story goes mainstream

The story of Al Gore’s alleged unwanted sexual advances toward a Portland, Ore., masseuse, which had been simmering since the National Enquirer first published the allegations last week, broke into the mainstream news cycle Friday after the Portland police announced they would reopen their investigation. Anderson Cooper did a segment on the story on CNN Thursday night. By Friday, it was all over network television newscasts, while the Oregonian had a front-page mea culpa by the Portland police chief saying his department had mishandled the investigation when it first surfaced in 2006. The story’s jump from the fringe to the mainstream compounds the problems for Gore, whose family spokesman, Kalee Kreider, has said that Gore “unequivocally and emphatically” denied making unwanted sexual advances. “Further investigation into this matter will only benefit Mr. Gore.” It also brought up by-now-familiar accusations of the media’s complicity in covering up the scandal when it first surfaced. The Portland Tribune, which was looking into the story in 2007 and 2008, has taken some heat for its decision not to go forward with the story. In a piece titled “Al Gore and the Media Protection Racket,” The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord argued that the existence of a police report involving the former vice president was news in itself, and the Tribune should have reported it as such. For the Spectator, it was d

Biden Wrong: June Data Shows 125,000 Lost Jobs, But Media Still Ignore Failure of Stimulus

The June jobs report was released July 2 showing a tiny decline in the unemployment rate to 9.5 percent, but a depressing 125,000 overall non-farm payroll jobs lost . CNN’s “American Morning” reacted with an appropriately downbeat report, but the onscreen chyron led with the better news — showing the lower unemployment rate rather than the job losses. Christine Romans also pointed out that it was the “best unemployment rate since July 2009,” though later in the segment she admitted the rate is still “horrible.” NBC’s Ann Curry offered a very brief report on the jobs data on “Today,” also highlighting the lowest unemployment rate “since last July.” The report also contradicted Vice President Joe Biden’s predictions of 100,000 to 200,000 jobs gained each month for the rest of 2010. This month, Biden is off by about 275,000 jobs On June 2, Obama declared the U.S. economy was “moving in the right direction.” The same day, Vice President Biden predicted 100,000 to 200,000 jobs would be created each month through 2010. That prediction,if it came true, would fall 5.2 million jobs short of Obama’s promise that the stimulus package would create more than 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. As of July 2, adding June job losses puts Obama more than 5.3 million jobs away from his promise. “American Morning,” “Today” and the immediate reaction on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to the June numbers all ignored the failure of Obama’s economic stimulus packages. The federal government has thrown billions (the $787 billion stimulus package, not to mention Cash for Clunkers, the Big Three bailout and other measures) at the economy in an attempt to reverse the course of the recession and generate jobs, yet the unemployment rate still stands at 9.5 percent. But the news media have yet to retract their support for government spending. “American Morning” host Kiran Chetry mentioned other bad economic news and then repeated liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who warned on June 28 that without additional stimulus the U.S. would go into a ” third depression .” “Some like Paul Krugman who say, if we pull back on stimulus and spending right now — austerity measures aren’t necessarily working in Europe — we’re going to be in more trouble,” Chetry said. Over on MSNBC Savannah Guthrie was also concerned that the recovery might not be able to “hold on” without further stimulus: “I think the real issue is, as some of these stimulus programs expire, for example the Cash for Clunkers or the housing tax credit that people were getting, as soon as those stimulus measures are taken away it seems that everything collapses,” Guthrie said. “So I think the question for economists and the question that the White House struggles with is: Where is the organic growth? And with Congress in no mood to do anything in the way of stimulus, any further stimulus, what do you do? Can this recovery hold on?” The reports continued the media’s unwillingness to remind viewers of President Obama’s promises about the stimulus package. When Obama was selling his massive spending proposal, the administration claimed the package would keep unemployment from rising about 8 percent. The news media have consistently ignored the failure of the stimulus to fulfill that pledge. On June 4 the news media spun the May unemployment report by emphasizing the Census jobs that “led to the biggest jump in jobs in ten years.” Like this article? Then sign up for BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

Read more from the original source:
Biden Wrong: June Data Shows 125,000 Lost Jobs, But Media Still Ignore Failure of Stimulus

AP Reports on Cuban Regime’s Latest Propaganda Exploitation of Elian Gonzalez

As is its custom from time to time, the Castro regime trotted out former refugee Elian Gonzalez for PR purposes yesterday. This time the cause of celebration was the 10th anniversary of the young man’s return to the Communist regime on June 28, 2000. Associated Press reporter Will Wiessert covered the story, which I found published at AOLNews.com with the headline, “A Decade Later, Elian Gonzalez Speaks Out.” Wiessert began by noting that “Elian Gonzalez says he’s not angry at his Miami relatives who fought to keep him in the United States” and that he was “thankful [that] ‘a large part of the American public’ supported him being reunited with his father in Cuba.” Later in his article, Wiessert insisted that “Cuba has worked to play down the public persona of both” Elian and his father since June 2000, but that “the latest anniversary of their triumphant return proved an exception.” The AP reporter was equally uncritical of the totalitarian regime in other parts of his report. For example, Wiessert noted that during Elian’s time in the U.S. that “[s]tate television crated a nightly ’round-table’ program that provided updates on the Gonzalez case and it endures today, though it now discuss all sorts of themes.” A roundtable public policy program hosted by the state media of a Communist regime? Yeah, I’ll bet that’s real fair and balanced. Wiessert also noted that Elian’s father Juan Miguel Gonzalez was “elected to parliament” following the custody struggle in 2000, but he failed to note that the Cuban parliament is window dressing for the Castro regime, and allows no opposition parties. Wiessert’s piece quoted a Castro regime official as well as a useful idiot who heralded the “love and justice” of the Castro regime: The latest event was organized by Cuba’s Council of Churches, which includes all major Cuban religions except the Roman Catholic Church, and was held at the Episcopal Santisima Trinidad Cathedral in Havana. The council staged a celebration in the same church days after Gonzalez’s return in 2000. “It was a triumph, not only of love and justice, but of logic over indecency of spirit, truth against evil,” Rev. Marcial Miguel Hernandez, president of the Council of Churches, told those assembled Wednesday night. A bit later, parliament head Ricardo Alarcon said that “for many in the United States, Elian’s case was the discovery of the reality that the imperial propaganda, the industry of deception, tried jealously to hide.” Yet no critics of the Castro regime were quoted in the story, even though Wiessert found space to quote propaganda from an official Castro regime newspaper: “The boy of yesterday is now a Cuban like any other,” said the Communist Youth newspaper Juventud Rebelde, adding that “a decade after being used as a toy by the enemies of the revolution … he is preparing to be a future officer of the Revolutionary Armed Forces.”

See the original post here:
AP Reports on Cuban Regime’s Latest Propaganda Exploitation of Elian Gonzalez

Banks Financing Mexico Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal

Michael Smith Bloomberg June 30, 2010 Just before sunset on April 10, 2006, a DC-9 jet landed at the international airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, 500 miles east of Mexico City. As soldiers on the ground approached the plane, the crew tried to shoo them away, saying there was a dangerous oil leak. So the troops grew suspicious and searched the jet. They found 128 black suitcases, packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100 million. The stash was supposed to have been delivered from Caracas to drug traffickers in Toluca, near Mexico City, Mexican prosecutors later found. Law enforcement officials also discovered something else. The smugglers had bought the DC-9 with laundered funds they transferred through two of the biggest banks in the U.S.: Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp., Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its August 2010 issue. This was no isolated incident. Wachovia, it turns out, had made a habit of helping move money for Mexican drug smugglers. Wells Fargo & Co., which bought Wachovia in 2008, has admitted in court that its unit failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers — including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine. Full Article Here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-a… added by: im1mjrpain

Media Ignore Planned Parenthood’s $1.3 Billion Federal Funding Discrepancy

If $1.3 billion is unaccounted for and the media don’t report it, did it really happen? According to an  American Life League review  of Planned Parenthood’s annual reports, the organization received more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts between 2002 and 2008. A June 16 Government Accountability Report, however, found that the organization spent just $657.1 million of taxpayer money in the same time period. The $1.3 billion discrepancy failed to catch the attention of the nation’s major media outlets. None of the networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) or major newspapers (Los Angeles times, The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post) reported it. A Culture and Media Institute review of coverage found that only one newspaper listed among Nexis’ “major newspapers” – The Houston Chronicle – even mentioned the GAO report. The Chronicle’s June 16 article noted that Planned Parenthood spent $657 million of federal money over seven years, but did not mention the income/outlay discrepancy. Don’t Follow the Money The media have made Planned Parenthood a go-to source for several stories over the last six months, including debate over abortion language in health care reform legislation, the trial of the activist who killed abortionist Dr. George Tiller, and the 50 th  anniversary of the Pill. From Dec. 28, 2009, to June 28, 2010, the broadcast networks and the “Big 4” newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood 56 times in news stories. None of those stories mentioned the GAO report, and only one article reported the amount of federal money going to Planned Parenthood. The February 27 article in The New York Times mentioned an investigative operation by pro-life activist Lila Rose which found Planned Parenthood clinics willing to accept donations from people who wanted African American babies aborted. A separate New York Times report on January 28 characterized the investigation as “prank calls” to Planned Parenthood. Four reports referred to state funding of Planned Parenthood, but did not mention federal resources granted to the organization. Planned Parenthood’s 2008 Annual Report says $349.6 million in taxpayer-funded grants and contracts accounted for more than a third (36 percent) of the organization’s income that year, second only to health center revenue.  Federal funding for Planned Parenthood has increased by 45 percent since 2001-2002, when it  received a reported  $240.9 million from taxpayers. While federal orders mandate that government money not be used directly for abortions, pro-life advocates point out that federal money used to cover non-abortion costs frees up private money to pay for abortions. Favorite Experts Planned Parenthood is by far the most cited pro-abortion group when it comes to national media coverage. In the last six months, 30 broadcast and print reports have quoted Planned Parenthood representatives and another 26 have mentioned the organization. The 56 mentions of Planned Parenthood dwarf other pro-abortion groups, including the National Organization for Women (30) and NARAL Pro-Choice America (15). When abortion was a major focus of health care reform debates, the media turned to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards and other affiliated representatives to statements and analysis. When the media celebrated the 50 th  anniversary of “the Pill,” the media commemorated Planned Parenthood’s role in making it possible. A February 26 profile in The Washington Post painted a glowing picture of abortion doctor Carol Ball. The article described a “difficult time” for Ball and other doctors who perform late term abortions in South Dakota. When Planned Parenthood produced an ad in response to Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, the media praised it. USA Today noted it “defend[ed] abortion rights,” although the Focus on the Family ad did not target abortion “rights.”   The New York Times on January 27 turned to Richards on the increase in teen pregnancy rates, and she used the opportunity bash abstinence education. “This new study makes it crystal clear that abstinence-only sex education for teenagers does not work,” Richards said. In addition to news reports related to Planned Parenthood, newspapers published five letters to the editor from readers mentioning the organization and fives letters to the editor from Planned Parenthood executives. Another seven op-eds and entertainment reviews mentioned Planned Parenthood, as well as 15 death notices, and a couple of comedians’ jokes. All told, the networks and newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood more than 80 times in the last six months. But when someone noticed a $1.3 billion discrepancy in Planned Parenthood’s handling of federal money – crickets. The Sound of Silence One letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times February 7 illustrated the effect the media blackout has had on public perceptions of Planned Parenthood. Responding to the media-manufactured controversy over Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, a reader wrote, “If I had it, I would give millions to Planned Parenthood to advertise on CBS during the Super Bowl.” Well, dear reader, your wish has already come true. You might not know it from reading the Times, but Planned Parenthood already receives more than $350 million every year from you and every other American taxpayer, with no oversight from the “watchdogs” in the media. Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by   clicking  here.

Were McChrystal and Staff Talking Off The Record to Rolling Stone?

In the midst of this week’s Gen. Stanley McChrystal controversy, a possibility concerning statements allegedly made by him and his staff has largely gone overlooked: might they have been speaking off the record when they were around Rolling Stone’s Michael Hastings? This certainly would explain some of the bizarre comments allegedly made by military members knowing full well how the chain of command works and that the President is clearly at the top. With this in mind, the Washington Post explored this possibility in a front page piece  Saturday entitled, “Gen. McChrystal Allies, Rolling Stone Disagree Over Article’s Ground Rules”: On Friday, however, officials close to McChrystal began trying to salvage his reputation by asserting that the author, Michael Hastings, quoted the general and his staff in conversations that he was allowed to witness but not report. The officials also challenged a statement by Rolling Stone’s executive editor that the magazine had thoroughly reviewed the story with McChrystal’s staff ahead of publication. A senior military official insisted that “many of the sessions were off-the-record and intended to give [Hastings] a sense” of how the team operated. The command’s own review of events, said the official, who was unwilling to speak on the record, found “no evidence to suggest” that any of the “salacious political quotes” in the article were made in situations in which ground rules permitted Hastings to use the material in his story. The Post elaborated: A member of McChrystal’s team who was present for a celebration of McChrystal’s 33rd wedding anniversary at a Paris bar said it was “clearly off the record.” Aides “made it very clear to Michael: ‘This is private time. These are guys who don’t get to see their wives a lot. This is us together. If you stay, you have to understand this is off the record,’ ” according to this source. In the story, the team members are portrayed as drinking heavily. A U.S. military spokesman in Kabul, Air Force Lt. Col. Edward T. Sholtis, acknowledged that Hastings, like other reporters who have interviewed McChrystal over the past year, was not required to sign written ground rules. “We typically manage ground rules on a verbal basis,” Sholtis said. “We trust in the professionalism of the people we’re working with.” So, you’ve got husbands and wives in a Paris bar celebrating McChrystal’s 33rd wedding anniversary, and comments made during the event — which were supposed to all be off the record — became part of Hastings’ piece. Is that Kosher? Obviously, Rolling Stone thinks it is: The executive editor, Eric Bates, denied that Hastings violated any ground rules when he wrote about the four weeks he spent, on and off, with McChrystal and his team. “A lot of things were said off the record that we didn’t use,” Bates said in an interview. “We abided by all the ground rules in every instance.” But this isn’t the only beef McChrystal supporters have with this piece: Officials also questioned Rolling Stone’s fact-checking process, as described by Bates in an interview this week with Politico. “We ran everything by them in a fact-checking process as we always do,” Bates said. “They had a sense of what was coming, and it was all on the record, and they spent a lot of time with our reporter, so I think they knew that they had said it.” In an interview Friday, the managing editor, Will Dana, said the reporter’s notes and factual matters were exhaustively reviewed. But 30 questions that a Rolling Stone fact-checker posed in a memo e-mailed last week to then-McChrystal media adviser Duncan Boothby contained no hint of what became the controversial portions of the story. Boothby resigned Tuesday. In the e-mail, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post by a military official sympathetic to McChrystal, Boothby is asked to confirm the makeup of McChrystal’s traveling staff on the Paris trip and the communications equipment they brought with them on an earlier visit to London. “They don’t come close to revealing what ended up in the final article,” the official said. This all raises an interesting question that seemed to elude mainstream media as they quickly attacked the General probably forcing Obama to relieve him of his command: did the Rolling Stone break some journalism rules with this report? As NewsBusters’ Tim Graham pointed out Thursday, this is a FAR-LEFT magazine with strong anti-war convictions.   Is it indeed possible that much of the truly damning comments were made to Hastings off the record, and that he and his editors in their zeal to tear down McChrystal just didn’t care? Is it also possible that the magazine didn’t go through proper fact-checking procedures before it published the piece? If the answer to both questions is “Yes,” then maybe media quickly overreacted to this article before weighing and investigating such possibilities thereby making them complicit in ruining the General’s career while also conceivably endangering the mission in Afghanistan. As the Post has now let this cat out of the bag, it will indeed be interesting to see how this matter is handled on the Sunday talk shows tomorrow as well as in the coming days. Stay tuned. 

Read more here:
Were McChrystal and Staff Talking Off The Record to Rolling Stone?