posted March 29, 2007 08:04 AM            

Your "objective points" are flavored by your opinions ... wherein they cease to be objective and are more appropriately called subjective.

You can keep whatever opinions about me you choose. I will not be dragged into the pit with you and resort to discussing you or your personal characteristics.

I choose to reply to anyone because I have something to say. Your assumption and reply makes it clear, however, that people do indeed get to you. Deny as you wish. I'm not putting you out here to be judged.

No, I can't agree that you made an objective point, as I stated earlier. Simply because you didn't. It may be objective in it's unexciting conclusion that: jwhop is not here, less topics are posted. When you presume motives/agendas in relation to jwhop or that he is somehow the cause of all negativity here, your objectivity is lost. As would be the case with anyone trying to say the same about another after having repeatedly shared their not so good opinions about the person to whom they are referring.

Well, it seems you have no choice but to accept jwhop being here so that really was rather a silly question. My apologies.

posted March 29, 2007 04:11 PM            

quote:

---

Your "objective points" are flavored by your opinions ... wherein they cease to be objective and are more appropriately called subjective.

---

quote:

---

No, I can't agree that you made an objective point, as I stated earlier. Simply because you didn't. It may be objective in it's unexciting conclusion that: jwhop is not here, less topics are posted. When you presume motives/agendas in relation to jwhop or that he is somehow the cause of all negativity here, your objectivity is lost.

---

Anyone could view the data, and assert exactly as I've asserted. It's not an opinion that this place becomes peaceful in Jwhop's absense. It's a demonstrable fact. Proof of that is in the fact that it can't be refuted.

It's not just that less topics are posted. There are less posts altogether. Less partisanship. Less argument.

posted March 29, 2007 04:18 PM            

Part 1 - The Conservative Microcosm

What we've seen in this thread is indicative of the Right as a whole. There's always the Authority figure:

It doesn't matter if the Authority is Jwhop, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Cheney, or Bush. Whenever the Authority gets negative attention all the quiet supporters/enablers show up to defend the authority. It doesn't matter that the negative attention may be correct in nature. It only matters that you stick together, and stick up for your leader. You must tow the line regardless of the facts.

Part 2 - The "Nuisance Factor"

quote:

---

By the day by day number of posts on this forum...in my absence, it would appear leftists only come here for what they would consider their nuisance value. But I don't consider them nuisances. --Jwhop

---

That's a really interesting statement worthy of a little attention.

It's already been demonstrated what happens when Jwhop disappears: the board slows, and could even be said to become boring. Discord and arguments die, and seldom are arguments started.

posted March 29, 2007 04:24 PM              

you see, Jwhop stands up for what he believes in, with Logic and common sense...and alot of facts, you know I lean to the right?

posted April 04, 2007 06:46 PM            

A RECENT ASSOCIATED PRESS STORY SO THOROUGHLY TWISTED THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE to present the opposite of reality, Bill Clinton might be writing its headlines.

On Saturday, the AP ran a story with the depressing banner, “U.S. March toll nearly twice Iraq forces.” In it, AP writer Steven R. Hurst asserted, “The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army.”

One could begin by asking when in history the success or failure of a mission was judged by an algebraic formula comparing the number of American troops killed vs. those of our allies. (Imagine the headline: “U.S. D-Day toll nearly 6,600-times that of French.”) Aside from the fact that the reporter apparently chose this comparison from midair for the lone purpose of making President Bush’s troop surge appear a failure, it is also factually wrong – as the story itself makes clear.

According to Hurst, “The Associated Press count of U.S. military deaths for the month was 81, including a soldier who died from non-combat causes Friday.” So, the “U.S. March toll” stood at 80 dead. Hurst writes, “the Iraqi military toll was 44. The Iraqi figures showed that 165 Iraqi police were killed in March. Many of the police serve in paramilitary units.”

In other words, the number of U.S. deaths was less-than-half that of Iraqi forces. The very premise for Steven Hurst’s arbitrary story is based on an incomplete count that ignores those serving on the front lines of the Iraq war. However, since most Americans did not read beyond the headline to scrutinize his flawed methodology, they walk away believing the troop surge is proving futile.

It appears designed to demoralize, and it likely succeeded.

Hurst managed to bury the good news deep in the story: “The civilian death toll for the month was down significantly.” A somewhat less modest description of the death toll would be that of Reuters: “the lowest for four months.” Maj. Gen. William Caldwell reports in the one month since the surge began in earnest, “there has been an over 50 percent reduction in murders and executions.” Lt. Gen. Abboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander of the Baghdad security plan, also noted the operation’s success. Even the infamous BBC has conceded “violence in the Iraqi capital has fallen by 25%.”

The odd emphasis of Hurst’s story is highlighted by the fact that it appeared one day after Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero announced at a press conference:

all across Iraq sectarian violence remains at reduced levels. Attacks against civilians are down by about 20 percent, and civilian deaths are down by about 30 percent. Specifically in Baghdad, comparing the same six-week periods, attacks against civilians are down by 20 percent, with civilian deaths down by about 50 percent…The Iraqi public also shows increasing signs of support…It has reported that citizens are hoping the security plan will last.

All this progress took place with approximately one-third of the projected surge forces in Iraq. Nonetheless, in another story filed last Saturday, Steven R. Hurst editorialized, “While Bush, the American military and U.S. diplomats in Iraq have expressed cautious optimism about the crackdown…the ease with which suspected al-Qaida suicide bombers have continued striking Shiite targets must be deeply disconcerting.”

Hurst buried significant news in that story, as well: Al-Qaeda has started using chlorine gas against fellow Sunni Muslims, because the Sunnis now support America. “Al-Qaida-linked insurgents were believed to have turned to the weapon to strike terror among fellow Sunnis who have sided with U.S. forces.” In fact, the Sunnis are now engaged in “active combat” with al-Qaeda in Iraq and have signed up for the aforementioned Iraqi Police.

Maj. Gen. Barbero – who noted the U.S. is now receiving tips from inside Sadr City – gave a better assessment: “The use of poison gas on innocent Iraqi civilians discredits all of the Sunni extremist propaganda of being, quote, ‘an honorable resistance,’ focused on, quote, ‘driving out the infidels.’”

It also discredits the omnipresent objection of the antiwar Left, expressed by Hillary Clinton only yesterday: “It is time for us to get them out of the middle of this sectarian civil war.”

The media’s coverage also deftly elided the depths of depravity to which Iraqi terrorists have sunk. Al-Qaeda packed an explosive backback on a 12-year-old boy, which detonated in Haditha on March 21. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the terrorists have burned or attacked 208 schools, killed numerous teachers, and particularly targeted schools open to girls.

In response to these misogynistic, anti-human measures, the BBC has highlighted supposed Coalition murderers. The New York Times similarly complained, “Hundreds Disappear Into the Black Hole of the Kurdish Prison System in Iraq.” (Arrests, the story later sheepishly admits, of terrorists taken in during the Kurds’ war with Ansar al-Islam, the al-Qaeda affiliate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).

This kind of twisted, false measure is but a continuation of the prestige media’s coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom since its inception. As I reported, the day after Christmas the AP reported, “U.S. Deaths in Iraq Exceed 9/11 Count.” The ultimate casualty obsession story, the world’s largest news service reported with bated breath when the death toll hit 2,974 – one more American than died on 9/11. The implication is clear: Iraq was a “war of choice,” and by extension President Bush is a greater killer than Osama bin Laden. There were media orgies for the 2,000th casualty, the 1,000th casualty, even the 721st casualty. The media bemoaned a ban on portraying military caskets – which they quickly broke – and have taken to classifying each month as, e.g., “the fourth deadliest month of fighting.”

This is not reporting: it is news manipulation designed to massage public opinion about the war. It is an important reminder of the ever-present filter through which Americans receive their news.

If they haven’t smartened up.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27709

Not only have some not smartened up, they still cling to the myths the main stream media spoon feed them daily and actually attempt to shield the media from their own lies.

Some however, even "most" of those polled find the media and especially the NY Times and Associated Press less than highly credible and it's hurting their revenues, costing them readers, depressing their stocks and costing them influence with Americans.

posted April 19, 2007 05:57 PM            

April 19, 2007
New York Times Company earnings down again
Thomas Lifson

The string of bad business news for the New York Times Company and its shareholders grows longer and longer with each passing quarter. First quarter earnings were down a whopping 26%, propelled by trouble in the advertising print market, write-offs for the closing of the company's Edison, NJ printing plant, and slowing growth in the internet business, intended to replace print media as the driver of company growth. The write-offs on the printing plant will continue for some time.

All comparisons with last year exclude the business results of the company's television station group, which was sold last year. The starkest comparison, to my mind, comes with this data:

Income from continuing operations dropped to $20.1 million, or 14 cents per share, from $30.5 million, or 21 cents per share, in the previous year.
It doesn't take much projecting forward a comparable rate of decline to see real trouble ahead in just a few years.

The company has attempted to recover from the decline in print by investing heavily in the internet. But according to Business Week, expectations are being lowered.

Internet revenue climbed 21.6 percent to $74.3 million, making up 9.5 percent of the company's revenue during the quarter. In the year-ago quarter, Internet revenue was $61.1 million, representing 7.6 percent of revenue.

New York Times anticipates 2007 revenue from its Internet-related businesses, including About.com, NYTimes.com, Boston.com, iht.com and the sites associated with its regional newspapers, to increase less than its prior forecast of 30 percent due to a slowdown in Internet advertising growth.

"As Internet is supposed to be the savior of print, the online slowdown is worrisome," analyst Paul Ginocchio of Deutsche Bank wrote in a client note.