The Main Stream Media strikes again!!

Does anybody out there except the rabid lefty loonies really believe ANYTHING the MSM professes to be true anymore? The following is a copy of a letter from a retired Major General of the Army to a local newspaper. I didn't see anything about copyrights or restrictions about passing this on, so will all you folks who can't wait to castigate me for my copy right infringements just hold your criticisms for a bit.
This was forwarded to me by a past, long time, (35 years) home owner on the Island. He is a very intelligent person and vets all things he passes to me if possible. So I do believe it, and post it herewith for your perusal! This just goes to show you how far they will go to get their messiah elected this fall.

And some still doubt there is flagrant bias afoot in the media...?.

This story is not so much about inaccuracy as it is about what Catholic
schoolboys used to whimsically refer to as “Jesuit half-truths”, i.e.,
withholding essential bits of information to induce gullible listeners or
readers to form wrong opinions….. or at best…..endorse slightly distorted

Providing facts to allow the public to form objective opinions is what some
of us like to believe reporting should be about. But that’s naive if we
don’t happen to own TV/Radio stations or newspapers.

ABC staffers chose to follow the lead of their owners.

Note: . According to SNOPES.COM this cannot be verified and is
undetermined.......however, statistically this [story] is probably true as
the odds are small that McCain would receive only 1 out of 6 votes.(cf

This from Major General (ret) Buckman


My niece, Katelyn, stationed at Baluud , Iraq was assigned, with others of
her detachment, to be escort/guard/ watcher for Martha Raddatz of ABC News
as she covered John McCain's recent trip to Iraq . Katelyn and her Captain
stood directly behind Raddatz as she queried GI's walking past. They kept
count of the GI's and you should remember these numbers. She asked 60 GI's
who they planned to vote for in November. 54 said John McCain, 4 for Obama
and 2 for Hillary. Katelyn called home and told her Mom and Dad to watch
ABC news the next night because she was standing directly behind Raddatz and
maybe they'd see her on TV. Mom and Dad of course, called and emailed all
the kinfolk to watch the newscast and maybe see Katelyn. Well, of course, we
all watched and what we saw wasn't a glimpse of Katelyn, but got a hell' uva
view of skewed news. After a dissertation on McCain's trip and speech, ABC
showed 5 GI's being asked by Raddatz how they were going to vote in
November; 3 for Obama and 2 for Clinton . No mention of the 54 for McCain.



Anonymous said...

Ev, we could bring the troops home, bring democracy to Iraq and rebuild the place and the MSM wouldn't give it 30seconds. But any negative news is a lead story.

Old NFO said...

If it bleeds it leads... and if it's democrat positive it leads, otherwise it is buried or skewed as this story was.

Sam said...

It all shows that you can't trust 80% of what you read or see on TV.

Anonymous said...

"The sky is falling the sky is falling" If you watch TV News or read the newspapers you get to hear the modern version every day. "We are heading into a Depression, we are heading into a Depression"
The economy DOES suck, but we are not even in a recession no less, a depression. Part of what drives the economy is public perception, these "chicken littles" are doing their best to create a recession or worse, with their "campaigning" for a depression.
A study by the Business and Media Institute (BMI) found that ABC, CBS and NBC regularly "hyped similarities to the Great Depression."

Sam said...

For sure you bet they do. The media is always looking for a story that is dumbed down for the 'Merkin Republic, as we'll believe anything. No big disasters or hurricanes, so I guess one has to "chase the story" on little stuff.

If you're surprised because of media hacks chopping up campaign material during an election year, and never heard of such a thing, I would have to believe you were born under a rock!

Anonymous said...

Oh Everett,
Why do you only pass along the disinformation that fits your world view?

Everett said...

Lets see now. I write this blog because I feel the items on it deserve to be read with out the injection of what I might consider someone else's warped view, or the changing of the context of the message. Why would I just parrot the views of all the lefties who have done everything they possibly can to wreck this country and turn it into another socialist heaven like Cuba?

There are literally thousands of blogs that do just that, so why don't you trip on over to some of them, and there YOUR views will be welcomed with open arms and closed minds?

You DO see, I assume, where it is the wonderfully crafted and implemented energy policies of the last forty years has led us too, right? Thank you most profusely oh peoples most Democratic party and your wonderfully inept leaders! Err, BTW, Just what is it that you guys have done for the country since you took over the control of the Congress two years ago? It really is hard to find something constructive that has happened. Oh Yeah, now besides having really high priced gasoline laced with ethanol, the price of basic foodstuffs is beginning to go through the roof! Thanks guys, you are on the right track to REALLY f*** this country up!!Keep up the good work.

Everett said...

Oh, and I forgot to add, "Why would I want to pass along only disinformation that fits YOUR world view?"

Anonymous said...

I invite you to return to snopes and read what Martha Raddatz has to say.
"The story that was supposedly told
by 'Katelyn' is simply not true..."
These emails are being sent to you by someone with an agenda
and are easily debunked.
To quote Colbert "reality has a well known liberal bias".
I have only responded to mis/disinformation.

Anonymous said...

Oh and
I'm 100% with you on the MSM.
It's the content of the email story
that just does'nt pass the smell test.

Sam said...

Ah, let's talk Ronald Reagan and energy policy. He's the boy that ruined it, so he deserves some attention.

If you recall, Jimmy Carter was not a very effective president but he pointed out that unless we did something about out energy policy, we'd be in a world of hurt (like we are today).

Mr. Reagan said "phooey" to all that and said that optimism, free markets, and no energy policy would be better than Carter's energy plan.

Decades later, President Bush decides that ethanol would be a great way to keep Mid-West votes by demanding that corn ethanol be processed into a good fraction of the US gasoline market, like 10 percent or more. This had been universally declared a disaster. The EU might even ban the stuff (not because of food prices but just plain bad energy policy).

So maybe you could qualify what you mean by the Dems having a bad energy policy, as I don't get it. -sam

Anonymous said...

George Bush's energy policy:
We are addicted to oil so we need to drill for more oil.
Look! Over There! a tax and spend Democrat.
John McCain's energy policy:
We must give ExxonMobil a $1.2b
tax break, now move along, nothing to see here.

Sam said...

Well that brings up another "media strikes again" job because drilling in the Gulf of Mexico makes a lot of sense, until we can get all those nice wind, wave, and solar machines running in significant amounts. I've batted away hundreds of enviros and policy wonks because I agree that while price won't be much affected but we should use the Gulf resources instead of importing so much darn crude oil.

When that tap runs out, well, there had better be a couple hundred thousand little Everetts putting up wind turbines and new stuff, big stuff.

Think about it, Alaska is a difficult place to drill and pipe, California is "fruits and nuts," and the East Coast doesn't have massive oil and gas finds. But the deep waters of the US waters of the Gulf of Mexico can huge reserves, some maybe over-estimated but many more not even found yet.

That's because a third of the territorial Gulf waters are in the Eastern Zone off Florida. It is huge! One rig called 'Thunderhorse' is expected to account for 3-5% of US crude oil when it comes online later this year - that one is fairly close to the Florida zone in several thousand feet of water. The investment in Thunderhorse was at least 5 billion and then Katrina or Rita waves knocked the snot out of it, which cost another billion and a couple years delay.

So I can see some large rigs coming on line that would directly help our economy, maybe not on price but availability. Taxing the pants off the drilling companies, which are often a consortium of large investors like BP and EXXON and a drill operator, would simply run off all the money, the rigs, and the oil over to places like Brazil, Nigeria, Angola, and the Middle East.

But you will never hear these kinds of truths in the mainstream media outlets, which prefer a political spin to everything. /sam

Anonymous said...

MSM strikes again examples are endless. Let's use real ones though.
John McCain thinks we can pay down national debt by not charging our wars to to the Chinese credit card.
Really, pay down debt by not charging anymore? Is this who we want running this country?
I'm not against more drilling. It makes sense to me it would take preasure off the futures market.
But what about the 40 million acres of leases that aren't being expolred now? I'm not against tax reduction but do we want oil companies making energy policy (in secret). If these policies make sense to you by all means vote for Bush's 3rd term.
I've got a problem with the knee jerk reaction that every problem ever has been the direct result of a Democrat.
Teddy Kennedy should have done jail time for what he did on Martha's Yineyard. His lack of jail time is not the reason the dollar has lost 41% of it's value under the Bush administration, gas is 3x the cost and three bags of groceries cost $100.
But if you like these things by all means vote for the republican.
People like us will continue to suffer and tax relief for billionaires will become tax relief for trillionaires.
Trickle (tinkle) down economics DOES NOT work.
John McCain said monday social security is a disgrace. Anybody know anybody who relies soley on ss for income? Privatization? Sounds good to Wall Street, they will be the one to benefit. It's a republican dream to gut if not eliminate the social safety net.
Anybody know anybody who has reluctantly used a social safety net?
If all this sounds good to you no one can stop you from voting for a 3rd Bush term.
However PLEASE do not push right wing propoganda as your argument.
If I say it three times it DOES NOT make it true.

Anonymous said...

...and before someone says I have taken McCain's social security quote out of context I think in context it is even worse.
In context makes me believe he has lost a grip reality.
Did you all see the one about McCain taking part/all of every weekend off since becoming the presumtive nominee?
Will he be home napping when the next crisis strikes? Do we really want Ronny part deux to lead Bush's 3rd term?
Oh no I've said it 3 times.
I'm not a Kool Aid drinker but if anyone is now it's true.
So now my world views are open to criticism.

Sam said...

No you're cool, have a right to those opinions.

One more "urban myth" I'd like to correct though - the oil companies are not holding back on drilling in their offshore leases. Somebody notice a few million acres were leased without a single drop of oil or fart of natural gas.

Let me explain. Leasing undersea land is cheap, the least of all costs. Then an exploration company has to come in with seismic equipment and find the pockets of oil and gas, often trapped under salt domes and similar structures. This can take a hundred million dollars, give or take a few mil.

At this point, the oil production company must take a gamble on whether putting a drill rig on that lease will have a pay back - that is, after paying for the rig, drilling crews, insurance, pipeline to the coast, and all that good stuff. Obviously, they're not going to invest another hundred million if they're not going to swing a 30 percent profit (fed and state taxes take about 20% off the top).

The days of drilling on a lease just because you own mineral rights or a lease or over, and even the "wlldcatters" are extremely savvy about knowing the bottom line before they even sink a bit into the ground.

Interesting, if you drill on a government lease without doing your homework, we'd see less oil and more expensive oil.

But leave it to the politicians who always need a whipping boy and to take credit to it. Yeah, pretty sorry, huh?

Anonymous said...

Since we're on the energy topic--- has anyone read Picken's plan---www.pickensplan.com?
What does it mean when an oilman wants to wean our country off of this fuel?

Anonymous said...

So that librul MSM strikes us today with another Obama is a Muslim reinforcement.
You have seen the New Yorker cover?

Anonymous said...

The New Yorker Cover is supposed to be satire at the way conservatives see Barry Hussein and the Mrs. The thing is, it skates close to the truth. For example, the flag burning in the fireplace isnt just about his relationship with Rev "Gawd d-mn America" but also his freindship with William Ayers, the ex-weathermen 60's radical, present day marxist proffessor.

Anonymous said...

I have no personal knowledge about
40 million acres of leases unexplored and I do understand oil
companies are in it to make money.
Check out the above article, these
are the things I question.

Anonymous said...

I have seen the New Yorkers explanation of it as satire.
But this magazine is supposed to be part of the loonie left and by your comment "...skates close to the truth" the myth of the librul MSM, I feel, has been upended.
I saw bad satire.
You saw "skates close to the truth".
That ain't a liberal position.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it was a hit job by disgruntled hillary supporters.

Anonymous said...

That was one of my very first thoughts.

catt said...

would all you anony-mouses take a number or a letter so we can tell which mouse we are hearing from or talking to?

Sam said...

That was funny, Catt. Anon, anon, anon, what is this Posters Anonymous like a bunch of alkies?

But earlier a nice person asked about T. Boone Pickens' plan that includes lots of wind power. This is refreshing after hearing all the muck about offshore drilling, which wouldn't do squat for prices or oil supplies. The numbers just won't add up. So Boone's plan makes some sense.

The caveat I tell people is that Boone Pickens is a billionaire entrepreneur and would only make such a move if be could make a killing. We know him in Texas for truing to corner the market on natural gas, water from West Texas, and his wildcatter days. When government mandates and subsidies for natural gas or water went away, Boone Pickens withdrew all his funding almost overnight. Tell you something?

So what's the federal subsidy for wind power now, something like 2-3 cents per kilowatt-hour? I'm not saying that the subsidy itself is bad, but that T. Boone Pickens has ulterior motives here.

Many enviros have ridiculed his plan but I will say, compared to the Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich plans, it is conceptually far superior and doesn't rely on black oil. -sam wells, spi tx.