Stop the US Election Coverage and Let Me Off

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
-Mark Twain

I don't blog about the daily goings on in the US election race here although I do follow the coverage almost religiously - taking time out when my head feels like it's going to explode or when the spinning gets to the point that I envision Linda Blair's head in The Exorcist. Yes, it is that bad.

Ironically, the great promise of the mainstream "progressive" blogs was to act as a counter to the half-truths and outright lies perpetrated by the MSM. However, this year, with the Democratic race narrowed down to a fierce contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, those blogs (like Daily Kos and others) have shown that their so-called factual standards are no better than the mainstream journalists they've railed against for years. They have become exactly what they claimed to abhor.

It's tiring enough to have to chase down the veracity of MSM stories through trusted venues like FactCheck.org, SourceWatch, Judicial Watch, and CorpWatch. I think we're on the verge of needing a BlogWatch site for some sort of objective analysis of what's being peddled on those sites as truth when what we're really getting is Colbertesque "truthiness" instead.

Additionally, when it comes to judging what the traditional, corporatist American media is trying to sell us, there are handy sites like FAIR, Editor & Publisher, and the Columbia Journalism Review along with several other sites. But when it comes to sorting through what's being peddled about the election on the blogs, once again we're stuck with sorting out the often hyperventilated hyberole for ourselves.

Throw in the cable news opinion shows, and yes - that even applies to the darling of the progressives, Keith Olbermann, who now regularly posts his Obama-biased rants at Daily Kos because he knows where his bread is buttered (there's also a "watch" site dedicated to him and he does need to be watched considering that his "reporting" has become sloppy lately) and those of us who are a) interested in facts and b) have had more than our fill of the spin appear to live in some sort of No Man's land vacated by people whom we thought (at least I did at one time) sought to fight for rationality and common sense. That's been tossed overboard by people who are so incredibly emotionally-invested in their candidate of choice (even though both Dem candidates' platforms are nearly identical) that the "progressive" zone - full of racism, sexism and intolerance in general - has become nothing more than the equivalent of some of the worst right-wing blogs.

We know that the Democratic party will survive this election. The question is, with all of the inter and intra-blog fighting going on, will the so-called "progressive" community make it through this election to go on to focus on who the real enemy is: the right-wingers who may be poised to again run the US government? There are wounds out there in "netroots" land that I don't think will ever be healed.

When I step back from observing all of this though, I have to say that it's useful that these battles have exposed some extremely nasty things about some people who deem to call themselves "progressive". There's a horribly abusive underbelly in the Democratic party, witnessed through reading some of the posts and comments on the various blogs, that reveals just how hypocritical some Democrats who claim the moral high-ground really are. While some people claim to support their candidate's message of unity and all things noble about what the Democratic party supposedly stands for, they clearly show that their personal take is so incredibly far removed from ideals like equality, justice and human/civil rights for all that I don't even know if they are Democrats.

The bigger question in this reality is, however, whether the party itself even stands for those principles it proudly displays on its mantle. In many ways I don't think it does, which is why I'm under no illusions that a Democratic president will truly come through for the millions who are placing their hopes in a party that's promising major societal changes that will make a big difference in America's current cultural climate. This is, after all, a party that won't even attempt to prosecute Bush for his war crimes. For me, that says it all.

Instead, what we have now are daily pathetic displays of who said what where and when and what did they really mean? As if that ought to pass for an acceptable substitute for what really ails America. It's SpinTainment and there's no doubt that it's a huge industry, just as US elections, with donations to candidates in the hundreds of millions of dollars, are their own industry as well. While Democratic candidates talk about how much money has been stolen from US taxpayers in the name of the illegal occupation in Iraq - money they say could have gone towards education, infrastructure and so many other American needs - they're raking in huge amounts of money for what, exactly? To buy the presidency. A pursuit that goes on, not just for months, but for years. You cannot honestly rail against obscenity if you play a part in purveying it.

This race has shown just how undemocratic and vicious Democrats can be and it has also shown just how little truth is valued on the so-called "left" which, in many too instances is just centrism dressed up in liberal clothing anyway. I'm all for a long Democratic battle. Let the knives continue to come out. Maybe then, after all of the blood has been drawn and the negativity has exhausted Dem party supporters, there will be a long, hard look at exactly what the party has become. In the end, if they're truly willing to admit it, I think they'll find that their ideals have taken a back seat to exactly the kind of divisiveness they accuse the right-wingers of spreading. And they'll also find that their methods - excusing blatant spin as being prized above reality - are just as useless and damaging as those of their political opponents. That's if they're even willing to take that desperately needed long, hard look.

In the meantime, I'll stick to looking for my facts in places that have no axes to grind, no candidate to support and no piper to pay. One head-spinning Linda Blair was enough.
 

Bad Reuters! No Pulitzer for you!

Does it get much more embarrassing than this??

News agency Reuters has been forced to admit that footage it released last week purportedly showing Russian submersibles on the seabed of the North Pole actually came from the movie Titanic.

Insult to injury:

The mistake was only revealed after a 13-year-old Finnish schoolboy contacted a local newspaper to tell them the images looked identical to those used in the movie.

Reuters has admitted that it took the images from Russian state television channel RTR and wrongly captioned them as file footage originating from the Arctic.

RTR had also used the footage to illustrate stories about the North Pole expedition, but it is thought as library footage, and it never claimed it was actually of the flag-planting.

The pictures were first broadcast by RTR when the Russians were still several hours away from the North Pole.

Reuters distributed a package of clips that included the scenes from Titanic, alongside computer animations and footage of ships on the surface at the North Pole.

In its piece on the subject, two of the four Reuters pictures were from the Titanic filming.

Civilian Deaths in Kandahar: A Globe & Mail Reporter Gets it Wrong

This is what the Globe and Mail's reporter Graeme Smith wrote in his piece "How Taliban exploit civilian casualties" on Monday:

The number of civilian deaths inflicted by NATO and U.S. operations in Afghanistan has risen dramatically, with roughly 300 killed so far this year.

One of the major exceptions to this trend has been in Kandahar province, where Canadian commanders say they haven't heard any complaints of civilian casualties in 2007.

So, who's lying? The "Canadian commanders" or Smith?

Via wiki:

* February 17, 2007 An unarmed man acting in a suspicious manner was shot and killed by Canadian troops near the village of Senjaray 12 km west of Kandahar[21]

* February 17, 2007 NATO troops shot and killed a civilian who was running through convoy near Kandahar[22]

* February 18, 2007 Canadian troops mistakenly gunned down an Afghan National Police officer and a homeless beggar after their convoy was ambushed in Kandahar City late Sunday[23]

* February 27, 2007 Canadian troops fire at a Toyota car that failed to stop at a security cordon around a broken down Canadian vehicle in the Kandahar area. One occupant is killed, the other is wounded. No weapons or bombs were found.[24]

Maybe that article should get a new headline: How Graeme Smith Denies Civilian Casualties
 

Iran: The Truth is in the Details

When it comes to media reporting on what's supposedly going on in Iran, it's been proven time and time again that you have to read beyond the headlines to find out what's really going on.

Take this story in the Independent, for example, (which is disappointing, since that newspaper is usually a top notch source of information):

Iran defies UN to join nuclear club

Iran announced yesterday that it has taken a step forward in its nuclear programme by moving to industrial scale enrichment, thereby defying three United Nations resolutions and setting itself on a collision course with the United States.

Case closed, right?

Wrong.

The reporter relied on rantings by President Ahmadinejad on Sunday in which he announced, "With great honour, I declare that as of today our dear country has joined the nuclear club of nations and can produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale."

And that might just be believable if the IAEA had actually confirmed those claims, but it hasn't:

The UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, still has to verify the move. In the past, announcements of some advances have proved premature - and the programme is believed to be fraught with technical problems.

And then there's this faulty logic:

Later Iranian officials refused to specify to journalists the number of centrifuges they've begun operating, a key indicator of how far their nuclear weapons programme has progressed, leading some diplomats to query whether the claim might be at least partly a bluff.

That's not a key indicator of anything and if the author of that article had any journalistic principles, he would avoid such hasty conclusions while listening to those diplomats.

Even the White House bought Ahmadinejad's proclamations without any proof - not that they've ever been concerned about proof before.

"We are very concerned about Iran's announcement that they entered an industrial stage of nuclear fuel production," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council. "Iran continues to defy the international community and further isolate itself by expanding its nuclear program, rather than suspending uranium enrichment."

If Iran is indeed violating UN resolutions, there's a diplomatic way to deal with that which involves a process that begins with verification. People may have been fooled by Condi's warnings about Iraq's "mushroom cloud" and her so-called "smoking gun" before. They're not going to be fooled again.

Fool me once, shame on you Fool me--can't get fooled again ...
- The Decider

Related: According to Angus-Reid:

Many adults in the United States believe a military conflict with Iran could develop within the next year, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 55 per cent of respondents think it is likely that the U.S. will be at war with Iran.

And just how,exactly, are they going to make sure that doesn't happen, especially since the Democrats backed down from their demand last month that Bush seek congressional approval before he decides to attack Iran? No wonder congress's approval ratings are currently lower than Bush's.