“Never been reported in the media” and other myths

One of my favorite real-life anecdotes: (I’ve witnessed this numerous times over the years):

C-SPAN CALLER: “I want to talk about X, because it’s never been covered by the media.”

C-SPAN HOST: “How did you learn about this?”

C-SPAN CALLER: “I heard it on the radio.”

What the caller is unconsciously saying is that it’s not being reported in the mainstream media.*

Fortunately, the days are long gone when three networks, the NYT, WaPo, and AP pretty controlled everything being reported. But today thanks to everything from the web to Twitter, there’s virtually nothing that goes unreported.

That doesn’t mean you don’t have to dig for it sometimes, but Google makes that easy, especially if you know a little about structuring search parameters.

And if you bookmark about half a dozen websites, a conservative can get all the less-reported information he could want. Or he can enjoy Fox news or talk radio. It’s no coincidence that these broadcast resources have overwhelming ratings. They are the antidote to the MSM.

But you don’t even need a computer or television. The Wall Street Journal is now the nation’s largest daily, which I have delivered to me each morning instead of the local rag.

It’s “straight news” reporting is scrupulously unbiased, and its editorial page —which is conservative— provides a refreshing alternative to the knee-jerk liberalism of most of the nation’s newspapers.

More important, the WSJ is big and profitable enough to have a very large news staff. This is in stark contrast to the average daily newspaper which simply regurgitates AP and NYT stories for its national reporting.

The UPI is effectively gone,** and Reuters is rarely used as a news feed in this country, even though it’s offensively liberal.

The real tragedy of journalism is that US newspapers are folding at record rates. Almost all afternoon papers (historically “the working man’s paper” in every city) have disappeared. And only a handful of cities have more than one paper, period.

Unfortunately, this means that through attrition, The New York Times essentially drives all American newspaper coverage. Newspaper and network editors look at what the NYT is covering and follow it like trained monkeys.

NYT stories —and more important, its slant on the news— get passed through with no scrutiny or editing. When I was in journalism school, at least AP stories were typically rewritten by the local pubs.

Such concentration of orientation would be bad under any circumstances, but it's especially dangerous since the Times management has passed on to one of the idiot children, “Pinch” Sulzberger.

Many of us can exult in the Times’ slide towards bankruptcy, but know that won’t help. The execrable Minneapolis Star & Tribune (referred to locally as the Star & Sickle or Red Star) is hemorrhaging money, but even as it lays off staff by the carload, the most brain-dead liberals within the publication cling like lamprey eels.

Notwithstanding all the above, “never been reported in the media” is the unicorn of modern communications: a wholly mythical creature whose attraction borders on the mystical.

And one of the perverse results of this myth is that it creates endless bogus “never been reported” emails, which pretend to be some sort of magical truth unavailable anywhere else.

Refer to my upcoming post “Top Ten ways to spot hoaxes, urban legends, and bogus emails."

* Often abbreviated as MSM. Or as ex-CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg wryly describes it, the lamestream media. It is so heavily biased nowadyas as to be something of a joke, if it weren’t a disservice to the American public.

** Its share plummeted with the disappearance of afternoon newspapers, its primary niche. It was finally sold by the founding Scripps family, with two subsequent bankruptcies. Now owned by the Unification Church.

Comments

"Last train from Hiroshima" pulled due to fraud

One again, a book with a political agenda turns out to be a canard.
Remember the Bellesiles book that claimed early Americans didn't own firearms? It too was full of blatant fabrications, and its author was stripped of the Bancroft Prize and given the boot from the college where he taught.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

Holt to Cease Publication of 'Last Train to Hiroshima'

Rachel Deahl -- Publishers Weekly, 3/1/2010 12:58:17 PM

After Charles Pellegrino, author of Last Train to Hiroshima, became embroiled in a dust-up over being deceived by a source for his book about the immediate aftermath of the bombing of the Japanese city, publisher Henry Holt has decided to go with the drastic move of ceasing publication of the title. The Macmillan imprint announced last week that it would make corrections to future editions of the book but now, after questions have surfaced about the validity of other accounts Pellegrino sourced in the book, Holt has decided to shelve the title entirely. In a statement issued today Holt said that while Pellegrino "fully admitted his mistake" and went about immediately fixing it, in the wake of the initial discovery "questions about other sources and the author's credentials arose." Holt went on to say: "The author of any work of non-fiction must stand behind its content. We must rely on our authors to answer questions that may arise as to the accuracy of their work and reliability of their sources. Unfortunately Mr. Pellegrino was not able to answer the additional questions that have arisen about his book to our satisfaction." A Holt spokesperson said that following the initial disclosure the publisher began receiving other questions from media sources about the book and while Pellegrino answered the questions, Holt was not fully satisfied with the answers. Holt shipped 18,000 copies of the book and will issus a credit to wholesalers and retailers on returns of the book. Consumers can also seek a credit from their retailer on the title.
Here's the NYT story:
file:///Users/garyknutson/Documents/Doubts%20Raised%20on%20Book’s%20Tale%20of%20Atom%20Bomb%20-%20NYTimes.com.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/books/21hiroshima.html?pagewanted=print
An illuminating review appears on Amazon:
1.0 out of 5 stars What's Gone Wrong With Book Reviewers?,February 21, 2010
I just read the New York Times article about the deception Mr. Pelligrino fell for--a Mr. Fuoco claiming to have flown on the bombing run on Hiroshima and also related a story about a pre-flight accident with the bomb that killed a scientist and rendered the bomb a "dud". (Some dud--70,000 people killed when it hit.) All of this not true. My problem here is not so much that Mr. Pelligrino wrote a bad book--anyone can do that. Or that the errors in the book amount to historical mal-practice which is deplorable as this book will be held by many libraries for many years, perhaps duping many more readers down the years. My problem is the fact that this book got positive reviews in the mainstream press (including the NYT). I have to ask--what has gone wrong with the process of reviewing books? And backing up one step--what's gone wrong with the publishing industry that allows error-riddled books to pass muster? Doesn't the publishing industry employ copy editors and fact-checkers any more? And who gets selected to review books like this--reviewers who obviously aren't qualified to pass judgemnet on the book's quality or accuracy? Where are the experts who could vouch for a book's accuracy--why aren't they being sought out to review books about which they are recognized subject experts? It should be a scandal. The same thing happened last summer with the publication of Craig Nelson's book Rocket Men. It got glowing reviews in the mainstream press and he even appeared as part of a panel discussion at a NASA History Office conference celebrating the fourtieth anniversary of Apollo 11. Yet his book is full of errors of fact and, perhaps, worse, very questionable assertions (e.g.; that the Gemini Program was of limited success and it should have been more integrated into the Apollo Progarm---both ludicrous assertions) both of which betray his lack of understanding of his subject. He may have written some well crafted prose, but the demands of a good history require the author get the facts correct first and foremost. Both of these books failed that elemental test and still got rave reviews. That's the real disgrace. Thomas J. Frieling University of Georgia Libraries tfrielin@uga.edu
More about this scandal later. Suffice it to say that publishers aren't vetting books, the reviewers aren't taking the elementary step of consulting noted experts (such as, in this case, the author of "Racing for the Bomb"), and so slanted views and political agenda poison readers.
Note also that the book's author plans to make corrections only for the "paperback and foreign editions." We're supposed to ignore the lies in the 18,000 copies already publisshed.
Comments

The best and worst of conservative magazines

The best mainstream conservative publications are the venerable National Review founded by William F. Buckley in 1955, now edited by Rich Lowry, and the Weekly Standard edited by Bill Kristol. Both are extremely well-written and scrupulous in their approaches.
Historically, the former is probably a bit more on the literary side, and the latter more contemporary. But NRO (National Review's online presence) thrives under Jonah Goldberg's helm.
The Standard's layout is cleaner and similar to the liberal The New Republic, which I periodically subscribe to, until I'm driven off by some of the more frothing-mouth contributors. Publisher Marty Peretz is frequently commonsensical, despite having been Al Gore's mentor.
Human Events, dating from 1944, is a respected publication, and incidentally the first to publish my favorite firebrand, Ann Coulter. Unfortunately, it insists on remaining a tabloid-format newspaper with production values inferior to a small-town newspaper. So I dropped my subscription from my ink-stained hands.
If they'd convert to a decent magazine format, I'd re-subscribe immediately. It wouldn't even have to be on slick paper, or four-color, although printing breakthroughs have made the latter very affordable for publishers.
Commentary, the Jewish intellectual conservative publication, is estimable, but its slant will make it heavy going for many readers.
Slightly off-topic: Reason magazine is libertarian, but really has a first-rate magazine and website.
And I must put in a plug for Jewish World Review, a one-man operation that's truly a labor of love and selfless commitment. JWR is worth a review all of its own, to come.
After this, we get to fringe-y publications.
WorldNetDaily has a magazine called Whistleblower which is a cheapjack embarrassment. I subscribed a few years ago, only to find the 4/c glossy exterior covers up interior content that looks like it was run off on a mimeograph machine.
Publisher Joseph Farah has a journalism background, but I take anything I see attributed to his site with an enormous grain of salt. Its circulation and revenue are modest.
Alas, a home to birther and North American Union conspiracy theories. 'Nuff said.
NewsMax is a strange duck. I regard it as unreliable, but it has some stellar board members, and is vastly profitable, having found a way to "monetize" the web.
In honesty, I haven't read their magazine, and have no plans to. Warning: If you ever get on their mailing list, you'll be bombarded endlessly with junk email, which is hard to stop.
Both these outfits have a host of good conservative columnists, but I'd frankly rather access them through Drudge or some other venue.
DaddyWarbucks recommends, in rank order:
  1. National Review/The Weekly Standard (tie)
  2. Reason/Commentary (tie)
  3. Human Events
  4. Townhall.com (website only)
  5. Jewish World Review (website only)
And none of the others.
Comments

Freebizmag.com — a total waste of time

I got sucked into registering for this with the promise of free tech magazines.
After long, laborious minutes wasted filling out their moronic forms, the results:
1) I get endless emails offering annual reports and other boring information about "selected companies."
2) I get endless emails offering more free magazines, but after the first few time-wasting screens, they ask you to fill out a long moronic form again. (This is information they already have!)
Unless you value your time as worth absolutely nothing, avoid this simple-minded bait-and-switch like the plague. Needless to say, I had to opt out to stop this avalanche of junk in my email inbox.
(It should be obvious that any industry professional that they lust after doesn't have time to put up with crap like this.)
Comments

The real hard times

"Bound for Glory" ran last night. I hadn't seen it for years.
A film buff can't help but admire Hal Ashby's direction, Haskell Wexler's cinematography, and David Carradine as star — the latter having beat out many high-profile actors for the role, including Dustin Hoffman, Robert DeNiro, and even Robert Dylan.
It's a work that shows what Depression times really were like —at least for Okies— as opposed to today's proclaimed woes, where not getting enough cheese on your pizza is viewed as penury.
But as is often the case, it's a Hollywood Version of actuality, making Guthrie seem irritatingly noble, albeit self-destructive in his behavior.
In actuality, Guthrie was a pedictable liberal/radical/collectivist and naif who followed the Party Line and wrote weekly columns for The Daily Worker.
Initially Guthrie helped write and sing what the Almanacs Singers termed "peace" songs; while the Nazi-Soviet Pact was in effect, until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Communist line was that WWII was a capitalist fraud. After Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union the topics of their songs became anti-fascist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Guthrie
Anyhow, it's a fine film, so long as you don't confuse it with reality.
Comments
See Older Posts...