Posted on 04/26/2005 9:16:06 AM PDT by kristinn
Whoever was behind the bogus exit polls last November. (I'll look it up tomorrow.)
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Is there a follow up to that thread? Is it true that Burka Barbie is expecting his baby? Did Ken really in response attempt to demasculinize himself only to tragically realize he lacked genitalia?
Right, at # 74 I suggested the promoters of the phony exit polls, but I'm not sure that any news organizations really bought into them or promoted them except internally. In other words, it might flavor the coverage without being revealed to the viewers/listeners.
Remember that technically the exit polls are supposed to be embargoed until the polls of the applicable state close. (Drudge broke the embargo, but then debunked the demographics in the samples relatively quickly, IIRC.)
On election day, I first heard of alleged exit polls with Kerry in the lead was on Sean Hannity's radio show. He was cautioning that the exit polls were horribly inaccurate 4 years earlier and should be considered highly suspect.
Later, Dick Morris stated his belief that someone connected to the Kerry campaign or the DNC was able to inject the skewed early exit poll data into the mix. I don't believe that it was ever resolved whether the skewed exit poll samples were simply luck-of-the-draw statistical flukes or purposeful manipulation. Morris wanted Congress to investigate whether this was a failed attempt to discourage GOP turnout.
Many of the left-wing "Bush stole the election" tin-foil hat wearers base their stolen election belief on the flawed early exit polls.
Do we have a Fake but True division?
Nominating the documentary Fahrenheit 911.
OK. The hype about Air America. I'll have to research that to see if anyone deserves special recognition.
Shouldn’t that shirt have the words
“Of my Wife’s Money” between the lines
“I Just Spent” and
“250 Million”?
Link to the only existing CNN Archived election day report from Jane Arraf in Baquba.
Of course it doesn't say a word about Arraf's wrong-way Corrigan moment; but it does have this little tidbit, from Arraf to Wolfie Blitzer..."This, for all of its faults, for all of its chaos, for all of the things that went wrong, that didn't go as planned, was very, very real, Wolf."
Now, this link to CNN's Iraq Election Day Video Log may hold more info on Arraf's errant report; but unless you are a Premium Service subscriber or an AOL Broadband or Road Runner High Speed Online customer, you can't watch the videos to find out.
"Do I get an award for having no life and posting often?:P"
I just stumbled upon this. ;D!
Skinner (to represent everybody on DU who puts out lying garbage).
###### My email to MSNBCNeedless to say, no response or retraction or explanation ever materialized.Subject: LIES in your news coverage -- retract immediately
You have serious, inexcusable errors in your online "news" article at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/261596.asp
It would take too long to run through them all, but one of the most egregious is the following assertion:
There are also provisions for background checks on those who sell weapons at gun shows and a restoration of the five-day waiting period that was part of the Brady gun-control law but excised by the Republican-controlled Congress three years ago after intense pressure by the gun lobby.This is some of the most erroneous, incompetent, propagandizing reporting that I have seen in quite some time. It is beyond incorrect -- it is fantasy made up out of whole cloth. In truth, the Brady five-day waiting period switched over to an "instant check" system late last year DUE TO PROVISIONS WHICH EXISTED IN THE LAW FROM THE DAY IT WAS ENACTED IN 1993. Enacted by a Democratic-controlled Congress, for that matter. Have your "reporter" check out 18USC922(t)(1), if by chance he knows how to do that "research" thing he must have heard about in passing.There has been ABSOLUTELY no legislative change to the waiting period provision since the day it was enacted, not by the "Republican-controlled Congress", nor by the "gun lobby", nor by anybody else.
Perhaps Mr. Broder was hallucinating about the 1997 (not "three years ago") Supreme Court decision which found the Brady Law's background check unconstitutional. Even so, that did not affect the "five-day waiting period" in the least, and not even a high school journalism student would be so incompetent as to mistake the United States Supreme Court for "the Republican-controlled Congress" or accuse them of bowing to "intense pressure from the gun lobby". What drugs is Mr. Broder taking these days?
Excuse me for being blunt, but I just have to ask -- where does your "reporter" Jonathan Broder get this shit? Does he simply make it up as he goes along, or is he merely a mouthpiece for the frequent lies of the "anti-gun lobby", with no effort on his part to check the "facts" as they are (mis)presented by HCI, the VPC, and the CPHV? When are your alleged "reporters" going to start learning that these organizations are more than willing to misrepresent reality to further their political agendas? And when are your "editors" going to get back from vacation and start fact-checking these alleged "news" stories?
I'm used to shoddy reporting from MSNBC on firearm issues, but this one sinks lower than even your usual low standard.
This sort of crap has been misinforming the public about firearm and political issues for far too long now. Only an electorate which has all the best information -- not biased propaganda -- can hope to actually make wise decisions about the course of our society, and on how best to help prevent tragedies like Littleton from reoccurring. You do the nation a huge disservice by repeatedly misleading them on these issues.
I will accept nothing less than an immediate and prominent retraction (not merely the silent removal of the lying propaganda in question), and an explanation from the editorial staff, or preferably Mr. Broder himself, as to how such a piece of fantasy could make its way into a "news" article. In addition, if Mr. Broder was relying on misrepresentations from anti-gun lobbyists, he would be doing the public a great service if he were to identify the unreliable source of information, so that future reporters (the kind that actually care about facts) will know that these sources can not be automatically trusted in the future. God knows he should have identified his source in the first place -- that's what real reporters do; are there any in your employ?
If I do not hear back from you, I will follow up on this topic via letters to all appropriate parties, both within MSNBC and outside it, and I will continue until some semblance of actual journalism returns to MSNBC.
CNN was responsible enough to publicly retract "Tailwind". Can we expect similar accountability from MSNBC? Or have you given up any semblance of integrity when it advances your staff's political agenda?
I await a response.
#### End of email
How easy it is to forget!
Arrianna Huffington for just being an idiot, who is as phoney as the year is long.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.