A nice five week vacation sounds nice to Democrats who'd rather be taking it easy instead of passing the energy bill in the House of Representatives. Yes, while we are paying $4 a gallon and more, Democrats decided it would be cool to go on a "well deserved" vacation.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Do you know who the Associated Press thinks is secretly hoping for a Barack Obama win? Why, it's "racist groups," dontcha know? See, as the AP reports it, a black man as president couldn't be a more perfect example of how the dark race is takin' over and ruining the white man's world, right? At least, that is according to the AP's favorite go-to racist guy, David Duke, anyway. And what better way for the AP to prove that only racists oppose Obama, eh?

AP decided to dredge up the aforementioned David Duke to let the country know that "the racists" are wringing their hands in a gleeful expectation that a president Barack will swell the ranks of the KKK and other racist groups. Sternly telling us that "They're not exactly rooting for him, but prominent white supremacists anticipate a boost to their cause if Barack Obama becomes the first black president," the AP lets the cat out of the bag for the hooded set.

Want proof? Well, the AP is happy to give it... such as it is.

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, of Louisiana, said Democrat Obama would be a "visual aid" to the idea that whites have lost control of America.

...and...

Richard Barrett, a 65-year-old lawyer who traveled the country for 40 years advocating what he perceives as the white side in racial issues, is convinced Obama will defeat Republican John McCain in November.

Run for the hills, folks, cuz "the racists" are coming to town.

But, where is the real news here? We have the claims of two racists prominent in their tiny little world that a black president will send white Americas streaming to the KKK, sure, but what other proof does the AP give us to make this assertion a truism. Well, nothing, really. All the AP has for us is the rants of these two goofy, unimportant, nutcases, is all.

In other words, this report is completely un-newsworthy based only on sensationalism and a salacious taking of the word of two members of society's fringe and making of it a "story." There has been no perceivable rise in racism in America because of Obama's candidacy. There is no corresponding data of swelling in the ranks in racist organizations. In fact, the AP itself notes that it's estimated that only 200,000 Americans belong to a racist organization. 200,000. We have THREE HUNDRED MILLION citizens in this country. Yet, only 200,000 thousand are estimated as belonging to racist organizations. You do the math.

This is not a story. But it is a nice, underhanded way to help Barack Obama prove that any criticism of him is solely based on "racism," just as he keeps trying to intimate with his campaign. The AP is as much as winking, nodding, and slyly saying to America with its hand to its mouth, "see, Obama's right. Only racists oppose him."

So, the whole country will suddenly join the KKK, right? Why, that's gotta be right. After all, the AP found two guys that say so!

-By Warner Todd Huston

Many of you will remember New Jersey Governor James McGreevey who ended up having to admit he gave his gay lover an undeserved State job -- even as the gay lover claimed sexual harassment -- and that he was cheating on his wife and family with that very gay lover. Many will also remember that disgraced Governor James McGreevey was a Democrat. "Many" apparently doesn't include the Associated Press because they are still publishing stories about James McGreevey leaving out that one little fact that he was a Democrat.

To the AP, McGreevey is merely the "Former Gov." who has succeeded in winning a recent court case brought by his ex-wife who was seeking alimony. Oh, the AP gives us all sorts of information about our friend James McGreevey. The AP tells us that he was an acknowledged "gay American," we find out he was "the nation's first openly gay governor," and that McGreevey is now oddly a "seminary student."

But, not once does the AP let us know he was a Democrat.

Not once.

We can sadly pile this little omission on top of the many dozens of stories of Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick sentenced to jail for all sorts of infractions of the law... but apparently not a Democrat as far as the AP is concerned. As always the pattern of rarely reporting the party affiliation of a disgraced public official when they are a Democrat holds true in these two instances.

At least kudos can be given in the case where the AP (finally) reported the John Edwards love child story. There in the fourth paragraph Edwards is called a "Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004." So, hooray for the AP... for a change.

In any case, the game rolls on. Name That Party continues in the media unabated.

(Photo credit: New Jersey Star-Ledger)

-By Warner Todd Huston

On August 6, the Boston Herald reported the good news that Boston's Retirement Board finally turned down the disability retirement claim of a fireman that was filmed participating in a bodybuilding contest even as he claimed that permanent back injuries suffered on the job had ended his firefighting career. The Herald hoped this decision heralded the end of the constant corruption of the Retirement Board that had become "a virtual adjunct of the firefighters union."

Perhaps there might be hope that the corrupt Retirement Board is reforming what with the retirement of executive officer Robert E. Tierney who is leaving under a cloud of suspicion of corruption -- and may be jumping ship just ahead of charges being brought against him.

Hopeful the Herald wonders if the backlog of undecided disability cases will soon be addressed as soon to be former executive officer Tierney allowed nearly 100 cases to sit unaddressed. Conveniently for the firefighters who have filed their disability requests, they continue to receive their salaries tax-free while they await the decision of their cases.

Naturally, the denied firefighter (Albert Arroyo) will appeal the decision and will continue to get his salary tax-free while he awaits that decision. Not only that, but he will not be required to pay back his previous ill-gotten salary.

But let's not get our hopes up. After all, cronyism still rules the day in the Boston Fire union. For instance, the union employs one Larry Curran as a lobbyist on Beacon Hill (the State Capitol). Curran is also currently the Chairman of the Retirement Board. As it happens Curran announced that he is not seeking re-election this year. It turns out that Boston Fire Union President Ed Kelly is running his own brother to fill Curran's soon to be vacated seat.

Yes, cronyism is alive and well in the Boston Fire Union. So, I doubt we'll be seeing the cozy relationship between the Fire Union and the Retirement Board clearing up anytime soon. Corruption has become a way of life, after all.

-By Warner Todd Huston

On August 8, George McGovern had an editorial published by the Wall Street Journal that astounds for the fact that it runs counter to union aims.

In it, McGovern warns the unions against their woefully misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act," the legislation that has as one of its main goals the elimination of democratic styled, secret balloting for union elections. Unions actually wish to eliminate the union member's ability to keep his vote private. This act will serve to put pressure on union voters to conform to the union's party line because, after all, every vote they make as individuals will be open for their union bosses to see.

Saying that voting is an "immense privilege," McGovern worries that the unions are abut to destroy that privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

McGovern tells his fellow Democrats that "we cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election."

McGovern sums up with the following warning:

I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.

I have to say that, for once, George McGovern is on the right side of an issue. I welcome his support to stop the card check system being implemented. However, I doubt his voice will be heard by the radical left, sadly.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Jonathan Kay of the National Post (Canada) is sure that we'll miss the old media when its gone. So sure he wrote a paean to how great the media is... and he missed the target by a wide margin on every point he made. Unfortunately, he took a good point and made a mockery of the truth of the matter with his wrongheaded reasoning.

In "You'll miss us when we're gone" Kay asserts that the media exists for "a genuine, altruistic desire for an educated citizenry" and hopes that predictions of its "imminent extinction" are wrong. He also claims that there are "certain kinds of important stories that simply cannot be covered, except by deep-pocketed traditional media organizations employing professional journalists." Aside from imagining that the press is at all interested in "education" he isn't too far off the mark here.

We do need the media, at least a media with "deep pockets" that can afford to cover things in some depth and at distance, the distance of the whole globe. Not too many bloggers and new media folks can afford to go about the world interviewing folks and investigating stories. Sure its a small world these days, but boots on the ground is an important thing to investigative writing. So, the old media does serve an important role. It isn't a role that bloggers and new media people cannot do, of course. But it is an important role nonetheless.

But, back to Kay's assertion that the media is interested in "education." They most assuredly are not. What they are interested in is indoctrinating their readers in a certain worldview. Education implies giving readers all the relevant facts so that the readers might be informed enough to make up their own minds. Kay and his cohorts, on the other hand, only want to convey their own ideology, carefully excluding and screening out information that doesn't fit their worldview. What they do does not educate. Of course, this is the main reason they are losing readers.

Yet, my quibble above aside, after his third paragraph he begins to effectively fail to prove his point altogether with the example that he thinks proves the old media is preeminent in investigative journalism.

Kay focuses on a New York Times story by Mattathias Schwartz headlined "The Trolls Among Us," a feature he calls "extraordinary."

Now, I read this same article when it debuted. It was a great piece. But for proof that we need the media, it fails to persuade.

The Schwartz piece delves into the nihilistic world of the Internet Troll. It is filled with jerks, creeps, and bigheaded nitwits who think they are somehow great philosophers. As all of you reading this are sure to know already, these are people who merely roam about the Internet posting mean things to and about other people whom they've never met and have no beef with. Trolls are inherently ignorant, no-accounts who do not deserve the attention Schwartz gives them. Still it was an interesting read.

But, instead of mere interest, Kay seems to think this story serves as an example of why the New York Times should never go away. He claims that because of the " New York Times-financed shoe-leather reporting" the "readers were able to observe the piteous wreckage behind the trolls' braggadocio." And he insists, for some strange reason, that this story could never have come from a blogger or new media writer. "There isn't a blogger in the world," Kay claims, "who could throw all of these resources behind a single investigation."

This is a specious claim. Especially considering that the story itself is one based on the Internet itself! Who else but a blogger might know enough of the ins and outs of the Internet and have the connections with other denizens of the Internet to write such a story? I mean, anyone reading the Schwartz story and found themselves surprised is surely one not himself familiar with the Internet. Trolls are quite old hat to anyone intimate with the Internet. Certainly there is not a thing wrong with Schwartz' story and the "shoe leather" investigation was a key element of it. But to say that this particular story could never have been written by a blogger is somewhat absurd, really.

Kay certainly has some rather grandiose praise fore Schwart’z story and claims that bloggers cannot replicate the "original news reporting on complicated subjects" that we see in the old media. Kay then says, "…for investigative blockbusters like 'The Trolls Among Us,' you have to go to dinosaur media such as The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly or The New Yorker." This adulation is a bit over-the-top, to be sure.

Unfortunately, Kay really missed an opportunity to find a better story to make his case. Perhaps a story on the Iraq war, or Israel penned by a reporter on the scene would better have made his case. After all, it is probably too much to expect a citizen blogger to be able to cover the Middle East, America and trolls on the Internet with equal aptitude. The one stop shop of the old media, however, does have those “deep pockets” to do so. This is not to say it is impossible for the new media to replicate, but it is without question certainly harder for it to do so.

Furthermore there really is something to be said for the so-called “professional” journalist. While most out there don’t seem very professional, the simple fact that it might pay reasonably well to be a journalist for the old media encourages people to go into that line of work. Whereas, blogging attracts hobbyists and the level of reporting and writing can far more often not rise to the level of a “profession” the way salaried journalism might. This is simply a fact of life. People go where the money is and in droves avoid the places where hard work does not necessarily result in adequate remuneration.

Finally, though, at the end of the piece he gets back on track and makes a good point. It is a point I, too, have pondered and I have found that I’ve come to grudgingly agree with Kay's fears.

Will I be here in a year, or five, or 10, still lecturing you on the importance of my industry? Or will I be taking your burger order through a staticy speaker? I don't know. But I can promise you one thing: If print scribes do go the way of buggy-whip makers, the marketplace of ideas is going to be more superficial and unedifying than it already is.

So, as much as I like to carp about the old media, there is a reason not to wish for its demise. I, for one, do not want the old media destroyed. I want it reformed into a more ideal, worthwhile industry that will better fulfill the charge of educating the public that Kay posited is its charge. I'd like to see a media reformed away from the nearly monolithic leftism it now peddles to a more balanced presentation. Or, baring that, I like to see the creation of enough media outlets that give the conservative side of the issues to balance the preponderance of wild-eyed leftism seen throughout the current old media establishment.

So, while I don't particularly care what Mr. Kay's personal future is I do not want to see the entire old media wiped away leaving only the new media to pick up the pieces.

We really do need them. We just need them to get better at what they do.

(Photo credit: The National Post Newspaper)

-By Warner Todd Huston

Amanda Carpenter has an interesting little blurb over at Townhall.com where she reports on Townhall's catching the Washington Post misidentifying three donors as McCain contributors when, in reality, these donors did not donate to the McCain campaign at all. It seems some due diligence was dropped at the Washington Post, for sure. Good thing the new media was there to correct the story!

In his story headlined "Bundler Collects from Unlikely Sources," the Post's Matthew Mosk thought he had a way to insinuate that McCain was taking campaign donations from some "unlikely" Muslims. Mosk detailed what he thought was the campaign donations from three people, Ibrahim Marabeh, and Nadia and Shawn Abdalla, each with Muslim sounding names, that he claimed donated to the McCain campaign through a campaign "bundler" named Harry Sargeant III -- a bundler being a campaign supporter that goes out and gathers many donations from friends and associates for his candidate of choice.

Mosk apparently thought that Harry Sargeant III was suspicious because he owns an oil-trading company and the three others apparently seemed suspicious merely because of the sound of their names. But at her Townhall blog, Carpenter discovered in short order than none of the four donors in the Washington Post story donated to the McCain campaign at all.

Mosk also tried to shoehorn into the story the tale of disgraced Clinton "bundler" Norman Hsu, who was "indicted in part on charges of circumventing legal giving limits by routing contributions though 'straw donors,'" even though there are no allegations of likewise illegalities with Mr. Sargeant's campaign donations. As if merely mentioning Hsu was enough to tar Sergeant as "unlikely" regardless of the lack of connection or similarities between the two.

As soon as the Post piece came out Carpenter wondered where the Post got its evidence of the donations.

Since this information is not easily found, the WaPo should have explained where it came from in their story. Or it could be, this is just simply not true. And if that's the case they should apologize to the McCain campaign and promptly post a correction online and in tomorrow's paper.

And only hours after the Townhall piece, the Post suddenly appended a correction to the Mosk story.

An earlier version of this story about campaign donations that Florida businessman Harry Sargeant III raised for Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton incorrectly identified three individuals as being among the donors Sargeant solicited on behalf of McCain. Those donors -- Rite Aid manager Ibrahim Marabeh, and lounge owners Nadia and Shawn Abdalla -- wrote checks to Giuliani and Clinton, not McCain. Also, the first name of Faisal Abdullah, a McCain donor, was misspelled in some versions of the story.

The power of the new media shows itself again.

But consider this: Carpenter just used a publicly available resource to track campaign donations to see that Mosk's claims were suspect. Was this so hard for Mosk and the editors of the Post to do? We all make mistakes, of course, but what does this say of the editorial work at the Post?

(Photo credit: Maryland Public Television)

-By Warner Todd Huston

Well, is this Warner Todd Huston fellow a myth? Is "he" really just a pen name for several writers from that vast right-wing conspiracy circling the web in their black helicopters?

Just ponder that question for a minute. Seriously, who has time to write two, three even four full opinion editorials a day? Who can appear on up to 15 websites or more daily? Who can be in Der Spiegel Magazine in Germany one day, the Washington Tmes the next, and then The New York Times? Who is able to have his work noted on the Air by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neil Bortz, Michael Savage, and countless other radio hosts across the country? Who is one of the most prolific writers on NewBusters.org?

Well, it seems that at least one of the fellow travelers on NewsVine thinks that this WTH is not a real person! NewsViner Joseph Caligiuri has a theory, you see:

Samuel & Mike, it has been my contention for months now that there is no such person as warnertoddhuston Mike as you seem to notice his many articles? I have figured that for the past 5 months it has averaged 2 a day. Its line is always bull and condescending to the Repubs. No insult will get you a reply and how on earth could one person seed, clip, and post on such a clock work basis. Call me Paranoid or call me left but in reality I am the retired Vietnam vet in your neighborhood who's kids played with yours and my real name is joe caligiuri, With a smile and a grain of salt, Joe

Now I might be a little afraid for the kids in his neighborhood, but... you know.

Now surely you can trust Mr. Caligiuri's conspiracy. After all, he has such levelheaded, and thoughtful articles on his main NewsVine page that his opinion must be unassailable. Important articles such as "Are YOU One of the 8 Million Targeted for Roundup by US Govt?," and "Is A Complete Economic Meltdown Just Around the Corner?" grace his personal collection. He also features a nice poster called "Fascism - You really think it'll be this obvious?" that features a double line of Star Wars Storm Troopers on the march down an inner city street.

Well, let me assure you, this guy -- me -- is a real person. I am not a myth or a figment of some right-wing conspiracist’s imagination.

OK, stop it with the silly conspiracy theories. It's me, WTH (and no that doesn't stand for What The H _ ll) I'm just an average American Joe that is interested in politics, philosophy, and fostering American exceptionalism at home and abroad.

There is no conspiracy. Many have met me in person. I have two goldfish, three sons (one in the Army), a wife whose patience I seriously and continuously tax on a daily basis and an extended family that I love dearly.

Sometimes I spell things wrong, sometimes my grammar is questionable. I have no staff and no editor -- and some may think that's painfully obvious, ha, ha. I'm just a work-a-day guy with a big mouth and more to say than anyone will listen to! I read too much history, watch little TV, and argue way too much with my coworkers. I like walks on the beach and an occasional pina colada…. or a beer.

Anyway, I just thought that this NewsVine reply was hilarious and that some of you out there might get a laugh out of it, too.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Correction 8/8/08: The original piece identified the Publisher, Cambridge University Press, as an American publisher. That was incorrect. Cambridge University Press is in England.

America is the land of liberty. It is the place where political expression is protected by law and custom. It is the freest nation on Earth... unless, of course, you wish to talk about Islam. Then, unless you bow and scrape, unless you assert its supposed peacefulness, unless you bend over backwards to make sure that you don't "offend" Islamists, you will be shut down. At least this is true if you wish to publish a book about Islam, it appears.

Not long ago, a book titled "Alms for Jihad" was ridiculously voluntary destroyed, "pulped" being the term, by its own publisher. This unusual action was taken because one activist Muslim took the bookseller to libel court and won saying that he was somehow maligned by allegations in the book. The ridiculous part is that the book was published by Cambridge University Press, was sued by Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz in a British court, yet the authors were Americans. This foolish publisher voluntarily destroyed its entire run and went to the effort to send a letter to libraries to tell them to remove the book from shelves over the verdict of this foreign court.

Alarmingly, Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz has been successful in at least 4 such libel cases against book publishers throughout the world in these compliant, malleable British courts.

A professor at Emory University, who won a libel suit in Britain brought against her and Penguin, Deborah Lipstadt, likewise told The New York Sun that this action by Cambridge University Press was a "frightening development." She said that it seemed to her that the Saudis were "systematically, case by case, book by book" challenging anything critical of them or anything that linked them to terrorism. She said that she could not think of any publisher that would now accept a manuscript critical of the Saudis. "This affects not only authors but readers," she said, adding that "ideas are being chased out of the marketplace."

Fortunately, some authors are trying to fight back to some extent.

The director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy, Rachel Ehrenfeld, said that Cambridge University Press "capitulated" and "didn't even try to fight." Sheikh Mahfouz sued her for her 2003 book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed — and How to Stop It." Rather than contesting the case in Britain, Ms. Ehrenfeld has taken to the American courts. In June, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in her favor, finding that if an American writer is sued for libel in a foreign court, that person can appeal to an American court to request that a British decision not be enforceable here.

But this is not the end of the matter. Sadly, another American publisher has capitulated in the face of the hatred and threats of radical Islamists. According to the Wall Street Journal, Random House has "abruptly called off publication" of a new book about the sex life of Aisha, the child bride of the pedophiliac Prophet Muhammad.

In fact, for the sum of a $100,000 dollar advance, Random House had already bought the book and had begun to plan the book tour for author Sherry Jones. But, the publisher abruptly changed their decision as word that the review copies sent in advance had brought warnings of unrest. Sadly, it seems an American professor is the one responsible for starting the Islamofascist ball rolling on this one. In an effort to silence the publication of this book, Denise Spellberg, associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas, began to send warnings about the book to radical Islamists throughout the world.

After this Professor, a fellow traveler of radical Islam, got done rounding up the many hatemongers in Muslim communities she was in touch with, and her agitators in turn got in touch with the publisher, Random House got cold feet. In fact, they became scared to death.

On a May 21 conference call, Random House executive Elizabeth McGuire told the author and her agent that the publishing house had decided to indefinitely postpone publication of the novel for "fear of a possible terrorist threat from extremist Muslims" and concern for "the safety and security of the Random House building and employees."

So much for America being the land of political and religious freedom, the land where anything can be achieved. It has become a land afraid of its own shadow, ruled by the stern warnings of lawyers and the fear of mob action. It has become a land where radical haters who claim to be "religious" can force law abiding citizens to live by foreign courts and ideas antithetical to liberty.

There was once a time when saying the west was not at war with Islam was all the rage. But as each year passes, that sentiment is proving to be woefully naive. If everything we are isn't under siege from without, there never has been a time when we were.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Well, the Associated Press is certainly living up to its new rules of being opinion editorialists instead of reporters if the following headline is any indication: "Obama links energy troubles to unpopular Cheney." This was unleashed on the world by the AP on August 5. So, I ask you, does "unpopular Cheney" sound more like opinion than it does simple news reporting?

In fact, the Cheney comment was not even the crux of Obama's comments, but a throw away line meant to give red meat to the far left. Obama did not center his energy discussion on Cheney. Yet here we have the AP deciding to make that the focal point of the discussion by making it the headline? Even more ridiculously, the AP twice reported that throw away line in the same 10 paragraph story. This seems to reveal that it is the AP, rather than Obama, that wanted to focus on Cheney the most here.

Certainly we can face facts that the liberal press has succeeded in pillorying Vice President Cheney since almost the minute he stepped into the VP Mansion at the United States Naval Observatory. It is, therefore, a fact that Cheney has a low approval rating. But it seems to me that the headline branding Cheney "unpopular" is somewhat unseemly and opinionated as opposed to newsworthy.

There is something far more insidious that Obama said in his speech that the AP could have focused on, but didn't because it reveals Obama's anti-business, anti-capitalist, socialism.

Among other things, Obama has proposed a $1,000-per family energy rebate to be paid for by a tax on excessive energy-company profits. He called for ending U.S. reliance on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela over the next 10 years, a project he said would cost the U.S. $150 billion.

Obama just asserted that the Federal government should confiscate money from private businesses and redistribute that money, giving it away like welfare! That is theft. Period. It is also as anti-American as you can get.

Yet the new opinionated AP leaves that alone and goes after Dick Cheney who will be retiring from public service in a matter of months? The AP decides attacking a man who soon won't be relevant to the issues is of far more importance than exploring Obama's anti-capitalist positions?

A far more relevant headline would have been "Obama Says Take Oil Profits Away," or perhaps "Obama Demands Oil Companies Refund Profits," or the like. But, Cheney is practically irrelevant to the future at this point. Still, Cheney is what the AP focused on.

Yes, we can sure see how the "new" AP is situated, eh?

(Photo credit: latimes.com)

-By Warner Todd Huston

Over at Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft introduces us to Amy Proctor's report on the amazingly large crowd of South Koreans that came out to welcome George W. Bush to their country. It's a good thing that Amy clued us in here in America, because our media sure ignored the story of this large turnout.

Amy directs our attention to The Korea Times report that revealed that 374 "conservative groups" intended to "stage a large-scale demonstration welcoming Bush, at Seoul Plaza," and boy did they ever come through. It turns out, the anti-Bush protesters were only able to muster a could of hundred protesters while the pro-Bush rally saw 15,000 Koreans turn out to participate.

Amy reminds us that none of the pro-Bush rallies were sponsored by the South Korean government, too.

But, true to fashion, the western media did its level best report only the bad. On August 5, at 6:07am EDT, Reuters first tried to report the President's visit with this headline: Bush arrives in Seoul, faces large anti-US protest. But once the truth started coming out, Reuters tried to cover its obvious mistake with this later headline: Bush arrives in Seoul, anti-U.S. protest fizzles.

Amy also found some nice video of the pro-Bush rally.

So, what happened to the US press? Where were the reports of this massive outpouring of affection for George W. Bush? They didn't seem to have a problem showing the love the Europeans dished out to Barack Obama, did they? So, why the silence on the well received Bush visit?

Somehow, the media sort of missed that one, eh?

Great report Amy and good work.

(Photo credits: #1 AP, #2 Reuters)

-By Warner Todd Huston

It appears that Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank has dumped his appearances on MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann." Host Olbermann issued a DailyKos diary explaining the dust up on Monday, August 4. According to Olbermann, the problem came in when Milbank violated Keith Olbermann's well-known journalistic standards. Of course, I jest about that... not that there was a disagreement but that there are any journalistic standards in the Olbermann camp.

Now, for a man that is supposed to make his mark with words and for a man the left constantly claims is eloquent, Olbermann's diary explanation is quite badly written. But, the gist of the matter is that Olbermann has supposedly been asking Milbank for "nearly a week" if an Obama quote in one of his Washington Post stories was sourced and reported accurately. Apparently Milbank took exception to having his own journalistic integrity questioned by a sports guy.

(Milbank's original column was headlined: President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour)

Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, who notified us today that after four years appearing with us, he had accepted another television offer.

This saved your crack Countdown staff an increasingly difficult decision.

For nearly a week we'd been waiting for him to offer a correction or an explanation for his column from last week in which he apparently reported an Obama quote without a full context turned the meaning of the quote inside-out.

Then he called criticisms of his column "whines" even though the dispute was over whether Obama said the self-deprecating: "It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign -- that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions" -- or only the part about "I have just become a symbol..."

We had decided not to have Dana on this news-hour again until this was cleared up, and, sadly after some very happy years, he's apparently chosen to make that cloud permanent.

Of course, I don't claim to be the best grammarian, but this thing is a mess.

Anyway, on his DailyKos diary after the main announcement, the MSNBC mouth also added some obsequious, meely-mouthing apparently trying to making sure his fans don't imagine he is too harsh on a fellow traveller. Not a very brave stance to take. After all, a man with conviction would stand up for his standards whether violators come from his side of the ideological divide or not.

Anybody who would come on television to talk about the Dick Cheney shoot-up, wearing an orange safety vest and a hunter's cap automatically gets my benefit of the doubt. But even that had a shelf-life, which was nearing, when he took any further decision-making out of our hands. It was quite a surprise conclusion, obviously, and I'll take it (before anybody tries to take it back).

I'm sure that wasn't his intention, but often one's best work is inadvertent. I'm just as sure his version of the provenance of the original version of the quote the Post's source provided was accurate. What happened thereafter was the problem.

This is one thing that definitely stands out in this situation. Olbermann's feigned deference to Milbank is so hypocritical it elicits outright laughter. Too obviously Olbermann is bending over backwards not to call Milbank a liar over his earlier column about Obama and he falls all over himself to give Milbank every benefit of the doubt, deserved or no. But there is no mistaking the fact that Olbermann is calling Milbank a liar, regardless.

But, in contrast to his absurdist rants on the air about how he hates those he normally finds less than forthcoming, despite his posing as the brave, stalwart standing up for what is right, in spite of his excoriation of those that don't live up to his supposedly high standards, Milbank is treated with kid gloves here. One might call Olbie quite a hypocrite for his soft touch with someone on his own ideological side of the line... and I think I shall, if you don't mind too terribly.

A big question is, if Keith Olbermann was so upset at Milbank, if he felt Milbank was not telling the truth, why did Olbermann not call him out on the air like he does his ideological enemies? Was he really so afraid that the fans would be upset? Is Olbermann's dedication to his "principles" so shallow? Shouldn't one hold to principle no matter who gets mad over it? That's what Bush does, doesn't he? He holds to his principles no matter who gets mad. Is Olbermann made of of less moral fiber than Bush? (I know you can answer that question) False bravado does not speak well from the so-called champion of the people.

Of course, there is the other thing that smacks of a playground taunt. Olbie said that he had "decided not to have Dana on this news-hour again" until Milbank addressed Olbie's questions. But, since Olbie never said any of this on the air and since the question was never aired in public so everyone knew what was going on, it seems more like Olbie is acting the part of the beaten up third grader yelling to the school yard bully, "Yeah, you better run," after the bully was long gone from the playground. How do we know that Olbie made any such principled decision? The truth is we don't.

I also find it amusing that Olbermann keeps referring to his little circus as a "news hour." His is obviously an analysis and opinion show, whether you agree with his politics or not, and not "news."

So, the man who prides himself on standing up and speaking truth to power gives one of those on his own side a pass, and grovels while he does it.

Quite hypocritical, indeed. And very unseemly.

(Photo credit: Huffingtonpost.com)

-By Warner Todd Huston

The L.A.Times' Andrew Malcolm is so over come by Obamamania that he sees connections to his messiah everywhere, even in hospitals separated by hundreds of miles, from patients admitted days apart, with maladies and injuries that are completely dissimilar. And not just with ordinary everyday patients in those hospitals, but with two star studded actors who ended up in hospitals, one in Chicago and one in Tennessee. And guess what? They are both... gasp... OBAMA SUPPORTERS. Yes, I know how shocking it is that two actors can be admitted to hospitals after donating money to the Barack Obama campaign. After all, the mere fact that they gave the messiah money should have been enough of a talisman to have protected them at least until the elections, wouldn't ya think? I mean, isn't their messiah letting them down here?

Malcolm's tenuous connections between these two actors and Obama only serves to highlight his own obsession because the hospital stays of the two actors have absolutely no relation to each other. Actor Morgan Freeman was admitted to a Memphis, Tennessee hospital on August 4 suffering injuries from a car accident near his Mississippi home. Actor and comedian Bernie Mac was admitted to a Chicago, Illinois hospital on August 2 suffering from pneumonia.

So, what is the Obama connection? They both gave money to Obama's campaign. That's it. They just gave money.There is no other connection between Freeman and Mac and Barack Obama.

Of course, it is utterly unsurprising that two well known black actors have given money to the Obama campaign. Heck, it wouldn't be too surprising if both actors gave to Hillary's campaign earlier in the primaries, either.

But, why did Malcolm focus on the tenuous Obama aspect of this story? There is no logical reason other than it gave Andrew Malcolm an excuse to have a story about his messiah. The two actors have no connection to each other. They have no substantive connection to the Obama campaign. Their ailments have no relationship to each other. They were admitted days apart, so the timing isn't even a connection. And they are hundreds of miles apart so proximity doesn't even play here.

Yet, still we get Malcolm's mysterious Obama linking.

Back in the Cold War, the left would scorn anti-communists by joking that red haters were so afraid of commies that they "saw commies under their beds" at night. Well, in this case, it seems like Malcolm is so star-struck by Obama that he sees Obama in everything. Malcolm might not fear Obama under his bed, but one could be excused for wondering if Malcolm might wish Obama IN his bead at night! I am not sure if Malcolm is in the tank for Obama, but he might have been tanked when he wrote this one, anyway.

Stay tuned, because I have some tips that Malcolm's next piece is titled "Obama Image Appears in Breakfast Toast."

(Photo credit: latimes.com)