Much controversy was generated when the “cocozão” (big turd in Portuguese) was erected; nobody in the region of Ponta Grossa seemed to like its design and concept. For the added irony, Ponta Grossa translates to “Thick Tip” making it even more a joke fodder among other Brazilian regions. However, the monument wasn’t meant to symbolize a turd in the first place. The idea was to represent a mix of the region’s pine trees and rock formations, which, obviously didn’t quite came out as intended.
Tired of seeing the city name associated with a giant turd, some inhabitants set it ablaze in 2009 giving the mayor a good pretext to tear it down for good. -- "10 of the World’s Strangest Monuments and Statues, #8, The Giant Turd, Ponta Grossa, Brazil."
Readers will recall Tim Steller, who goes by the moniker "Senor Reporter" and who claimed that he tried to interview me, but never did. Now Steller has a new "analysis piece. At least he doesn't quote Mark Spitcabbage in this one.
Here are some impressions I've gathered since I took on the story a couple of months ago.
The broad public's disengagement from Fast and Furious has grown so frustrating for some Republicans that they have taken to instructing the voters: You should be outraged. That's what U.S. Rep. David Schweikert did in this October Arizona Republic op-ed titled "Fast and Furious: Where's the outrage." But that seems to be changing as news coverage spreads.
Dennis Wagner's story in Sunday's Republic hinted at why it took mainstream outlets so long to cover Fast and Furious: He mentions twice that they couldn't get the story on the record, but Internet bloggers weren't constrained by such standards.
After Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa kicked off investigations this summer, the water became safe for the mainstream, Wagner wrote. "With government records and sworn testimony, mainstream media ran with the story." I think it took a little longer than that, but it's a quibble.
Then he has this paragraph, which offers a perspective I can relate to: "As controversy swirled, so did media coverage: Right-leaning news outlets sought to show a scheming, dishonest White House. Left-wing press sought to blame a system that allows unlimited purchases of semiautomatic rifles. Mainstream journalists struggled to separate truth from propaganda."
People like Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit accept no such excuses. He thinks we dropped the ball due to liberal bias, which will be the end of us, the sooner the better.
The outlier in this discussion has been Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News. She broke the story of Fast and Furious and its connection to U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry's killing. in the mainstream media. She's been hammering the Obama administration with stories on it since then.
Now that traditional news outlets have committed more attention to the story, it'll be interesting to see if the Daily Callers of the world are viewed as being out ahead of the story, or out on a limb pursuing their own agenda.
"Mainstream journalists struggled to separate truth from propaganda." And which propaganda would that be? The White House's? All we bloggers ever asked was that the "mainstream media," which routinely flows deepest to the far left of the creek bed, LOOK AT THE FACTS. CBS was successful precisely because Sharyl and her producer were actual REPORTERS. They were curious about the story, they wanted to get to the facts, they sought out the whistleblowers -- through us despised "right-wing bloggers" -- and found very quickly that the aforesaid bloggers were telling the truth.
Truth is, Wagner was THE FIRST reporter on this story. Truth is, he apparently was unable to get the whistleblowers to talk to him -- we did the same service for him as we did for CBS -- or he was unable to believe what they told him. The fact is that the CBS folks, who, I think, brought as many preconceptions to the story as anybody else, were willing to overcome their personal biases by asking, "Yeah, but what if the whistleblowers are right?" Their curiosity easily overcame their biases, whatever they might have been.
Steller is evidently still struggling with the difference between shit & shinola, or does he recognize that it is shit and is merely seeking the undigested raisin in the turd? Senor Reporter mentions Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit. He would have done better to simply mirror Patterson's post and let it go at that.
The Republic's Dennis Wagner attempted a comprehensive summary of Fast and Furious last Sunday. That's a pretty tough job. There's enough material out there to fill a few books and Republic readers have never heard of most of it.
You will recall that the Republic systematically ignored Fast and Furious for months. The story appeared on national blogs earlier this year and by mid May, the national media started to take notice. On May 19th I was the first news source that pointed out the local angle to what was then becoming a major story...at least it was a major story in the Blogosphere. The mainstream media spent the year playing catch up. The Republic didn't even bother with that.
After I wrote about the story, the Republic waited four months to write a Fast and Furious story--this despite the fact that the guns were purchased in Glendale, the operation was run out of the Phoenix ATF office and Officer Terry was killed in Arizona.
Wagner quoted a reference to this quote.'Don't attribute malice to incompetence,'
Malice or incompetence, that's a question I often ask about the Republic. I generally conclude malice. The Republic knew about the Fast and Furious story but the story reflected badly on the Obama administration as well as Napolitano protege Dennis Burke. The Republic chose to ignore the story and hope that it went away. During the time that they were ignoring the story, I used it as an example of how your news is carefully scripted.
On June 10th, I predicted that Dennis Burke would be fired for his role in Fast and Furious. He was forced out on August 30th. Yet the Republic didn't write its first full Fast and Furious story in late September.
Here's a post script that I wrote after the Burke firing. It's even more true now than it was then.Newspapers used to be the gatekeepers. What they didn't write, didn't happen. Those days are long gone. Now the newspapers ignore events, but the public finds out about the events through alternative sources and then eventually the newspaper is unable to maintain the blackout. The Burke story is a great example of that phenomenon.
Newspapers lose credibility every time they try to bury a story and it blows up in their face. Soon they will be gone and the world will be a better place.
A better place indeed. From his lips to God's ears.
2 comments:
" He thinks we dropped the ball due to liberal bias...
No the ball was dropped because they are a bunch of Communists, in socialist clothing and need to cover up and protect their operatives, when they get in trouble, lest the people find out about them and their lies. That could force them to rethink their security arrangements and possibly cause them to relocate to friendlier shores.
No worries, even Fox won't tell the truth now, so it's their ball and their game. The only place you can get any substantive news is talk radio, the net and the blogs. "They" control everything else.
I just love it when they still call this a "Botched Operation." So does the white house, I'm sure.
"Soon they will be gone" - I think the local newspaper will survive simply because of public interest in what is going on in town. You won't read about FNF in it unless someone writes an editorial that gets printed. Hey - that's a good idea! Then when you ask, your neighbor won't say - "Nope - never heard of it."
National news cannot survive economically - as long as owners are willing to take a loss, they will print. So long as they won't cover stories about their favorite party members we will ignore them and the last thing we will do is send them our money. There are not enough Libs to buy their news so they will not survive.
Why read a paper when you can find a story instantly on Twitter? The Chicago Tribune editorial board, supposedly, has endorsed Obama although I cannot find the article on line at chicagotribune.com Would love to comment if I ever find it. There are references to it but not a specific url for the endorsement and comments.
At one time, unless you paid, you couldn't read NYTimes articles. Now you get 20 a month because - no one was reading their articles on line! I am proud that I have never reached 20 in a month and been asked to pay to read the 21st. My vote is NYTimes is too biased for me and never gets a dime. You can buy it in Starbucks for $6 on Sunday if you are a fool.
Anybody else wonder what makes Wagner tick?
Post a Comment