Mainstream media meltdown mode?

Yes, the mainstream media are dominated by ideological leftists top to bottom. But I've always thought them eager to report fairly, on balance.

Yes, we have many indications that the mainstream press sustains a preference for Barack Obama in the upcoming election.

But the reporting on Sarah Palin is so far over the top as to virtually defy belief. The week's news provides some absolutely stunning examples of reporter ineptitude. I pointed out one where Newsweek reported a judge's order barring Palin from disparaging her sister's ex-husband in front of the couple's children as though the judge's order applied as well to the ex's supervisors.

Power Line and others point to Charlie Gibson's cluelessness in asking Governor Palin about a portion of one of her public prayers that he took out of context.

In the interview with Sarah Palin broadcast on ABC last night, Charles Gibson tried to trip her up in the following exchange:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

As Allahpundit points out, however, what Palin actually said was this:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

To borrow a Lincolnian formulation in honor of the Lincolnian formulation of Palin's prayer: the difference between what Palin actually said and what Gibson quoted her as saying is akin to the difference between a horse chestnut and a chestnut horse.

Power Line notes a flub in the same class from The Washington Post:

As part of its campaign to discredit Governor Sarah Palin, the Washington Post carries a front page article this morning by Anne Kornblut that headlines, falsely: "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska." The article begins:

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.

News flash to Ms. Kornblut: the Alaska National Guard isn't going to Iraq to fight "the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein."

This type of shocking ineptitude underscores the problem with the ideologically tilted press: They can't report objectively any longer because they don't have an effective check on their own bias. These examples featuring Palin may only be the tip of the iceberg.

As I have opined in the past, the press routinely recycles its own misconceptions as factual background information for the (ahem) benefit of its readers.

Olbermann on General Sanchez

This is hilarious.

Is Olbermann a news guy? Of course not. He's the Bill O'Reilly of MSNBC.

General Sanchez spent fully 1/2 of his speech excoriating the news media, and Olbermann is one of many in the media who decided that you do not need to know anything about what Sanchez had to say about them.

Gov. Richardson, who was one of the only Democratic presidential candidates for who I had some respect, made an utter fool of himself by lifting certain segments of Sanchez's statement. Where Sanchez said that the U.S. could not afford to pull out quickly from Iraq, Richardson presented that as precisely his plan--and Olbermann apparently didn't even think to point out the discrepancy.

AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ. A PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL WILL UNQUESTIONABLY LEAD TO CHAOS THAT WOULD ENDANGER THE STABILITY OF THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST. IF THIS OCCURS IT WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. COALITION AND AMERICAN FORCE PRESENCE WILL BE REQUIRED AT SOME LEVEL FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVERIEGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.
(militaryreporters.org)

Olbermann and Richardson both appear to exhibit the type of incompetence that Sanchez said would result in dismissal in his line of work.

I wonder if any news media figure will address the first half of Sanchez' speech? I wonder how many of them even know about it, given the reporting their industry produced in covering the speech?


Also see the comments Ed Morrissey elicited from Sen. John McCain on this issue. McCain says he talked to Gen. Sanchez in Iraq during the war and Sanchez supported the administration's strategy.


*****

Ahmadinejad at Columbia

If anyone from Columbia University is interested in seeing how Ahmadinejad played them in front of the Islamic world, here's a taste:

Ahmadinejad rose to applause, and after a religious invocation said Bollinger's opening was "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here".

He blamed the university president's "unfriendly treatment" on the influence of the US media and politicians ahead of his visit.

"Many parts of his speech were insults," he said. "We actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgments."

(Al-Jazeera)

Do read the entire thing to get the full effect. Those arrogant Americans!


*****

If You Can't Say Anything Good Department

I'd like to congratulate the 2 out of 32 at the Daily Kos who appeared to express a firm inkling that the supposed Bush gaffe about Nelson Mandela being dead wasn't really a gaffe at all.

Numbers subject to change as the commentary thread grows.


*****

Fight video from Wauwatosa

One story I'm tracking since my days of slumming at the Bad blog "Pandagon" concerns an altercation that took place in an eatery in Wauwatosa, which is a suburb of Milwaukee.

The news reports have presented a number of different edits of the surveillance tape, which TV news people describe as a brawl started by a man who disagreed with another group who wanted gay marriage rights.
The man, whom I take to be an African-American, left the restaurant briefly, only to return for the purpose of throwing ketchup bottles and the like at certain other patrons.
He was reported to police and is wanted on a number of charges.

The TV news story seems at least slightly at odds with the surveillance video, since the suspect was sitting in his seat eating his meal when a woman walked close to confront him. Though voices may be heard on the video, I have yet to see an attempt to provide a transcript of what was said.
The suspect shoves the woman and stands up. As he stands, it becomes apparent that another figure was standing nearby. So, this man was eating at a counter alongside others, having an animated political discussion, and two people moved to stand around him.
This second person moves toward the suspect after he shoves the woman, and the suspect swings at him. That's all we get from this video angle*
Video from another angle shows a different part of the restaurant, which is confirmed by the row of tables along the wall opposite the countertop--there are no such tables in the earlier video clip.
Here's the latest edit.
The first sequence runs a little longer than the versions the television station released initially. It shows a group of three or four continuing to confront the suspect, in a rather intimidating manner, in my opinion. Not that he's playing Mr. Innocent. He did push the girl who walked close to confront him, and he did strike out at person who moved toward him afterward. However, it seems to be the sort of situation that would have been defused if the four had simply moved away from the suspect. He doesn't come after them. Rather, he reacts to their movements in his direction.

My favorite bit from the second clip is where a guy in a green shirt throws something at the suspect, turns around to look up at the surveillance camera, and then moves back out of range of the camera. Check him out in the lower left. Green shirt guy is a victim, not a suspect, from what I can tell.
I still haven't figured out exactly what's going in the middle of the picture. One person is restraining another, but the person being restrained seems to be inclined to go after green-shirt guy instead of the suspect.

Hey, hey! With the extra footage in the latest release, it appears that green-shirt guy was the origninal guy who gets punched in the earlier segment.

The new clip even shows green shirt guy throwing a chair at the suspect! None of this has received mention in the news reports. All of the reports paint the suspect as the sole aggressor.
It looks to me as though green shirt guy tried to whale on the suspect after the woman was shoved.

I have to find the first video, however, because it gave the impression that there was somebody else in the corner who got punched first.

I watched the original edit of the video here, I believe. It's been taken down.
Perhaps it was the stop-action nature of the video that led me to think that a figure had been in the corner from the start of the altercation. From the latest video, it seems clear that green shirt guy rose from the counter and came after the suspect, and later threw a chair at the suspect. I think the video offers some evidence that green shirt guy threw the first punch, also.

The news coverage on this is just strange given the video evidence.
I sent an e-mail to the television station inquiring about the video (hoping for a release of the whole thing, or a least a rough transcript of the conversation) but no response so far (it's been a week).

It is still the case that the only witness accounts aired with these clips come from the three who were seated near the suspect, arguing with him.

Could their side be a little biased?

*Update: The portion before the asterisk contains observations I made based on an earlier edit of the surveillance tape. That's why later descriptions contradict the earlier ones. As noted in latter portion of the post, the chopped nature of the tapes led to some incorrect conclusions.
One aspect I find suspicious: In the earliest edit, I could tell that green-shirt guy threw something, but even after watching it a few times I couldn't tell what he threw. In this newer version, it is clear that he threw a chair at the suspect from about 15 feet away.
None of the television news reports (from WISC) has taken the slightest note of violence directed against the suspect.