Saturday, October 1, 2011

Some interesting Solyndra stuf...

OK, so a few posts back, I put in my two cents about Solyndra in a post which some readers may have felt was a bit to conciliatory to the Right.  Also, a bit farther back I joked about how a little research can go a long way. Well... shame on me for not taking my own advice!  I will say that I stand by the overall points made in my previous Solyndra post.  Nothing I've found has really changed my overall opinion, but the were some interesting findings.  There's rather a bit more to the story. Just don't expect the mainstream media to tell you about it. (Or Fox News to tell you the truth!)

First off, Media Matters pointed out how so many media outlets were giving disproportionate coverage to the failure of Solyndra.  And it wasn't just Fox! In print, the LA Times, the New York Times, USA Today, the Fox Street (sorry) Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post all gave Solyndra anywhere from two to five time the amount of coverage that they gave to the 2008 exposure of Government Corruption in the Minerals Management Service or about the waste and fraud on the part of military contractors.  The mainstream television media was not much better: 50% more at NBC, ~twice as much at CBS and ~five times as much at ABC.  And on Cable, but MSNBC and CNN also gave 2-5 times as much coverage to the Solyndra story as the other two.

BEHOLD: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!

Fox's coverage ratio was closer to 100 to 1, but this is hardly even about Fox this time!

It's probably worth mentioning that BOTH of those stories represented a much larger loss of taxpayer money.  Of course they also occurred on Bush's watch, and one in association with Bush's War, but hey... I'm sure all those Liberal media outlets were all over tha... oh, yeah. Um... not so much, as it turns out.

So, aside from playing their standard game of "Bash the Negro," what's really going on here?  Turns out it's a bit more than just the typical Corporate Media bashing all things green and Liberal.  Yeah, they're covering for the rigth in more ways than one. (In this case, TWO, by my brief, and probably incomplete, count.)

First of all, Down With Tyranny did an excellent write up of the Republican Hyposcrisy at play here.  Normally exposing Republican hypocrisy is about as difficult as putting on a hat, but this time it didn't involve any underaged boys. (This actually kicked off several additional posts about it.)  And he wasn't the only one - more from Daily Kos.  And all that's just from one blog. There's a lot more.  What's with all the Republican entanglement with this? 

Here's the key point, as noted by Extreme Liberal: THIS ALL STARTED IN 2007 UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH! 

In my own post, I mentioned that Government shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which companies will succeed.  And I stand by that. And I think most people would agree with that, at least in principle.  Where I kind of stepped on my dick there is that I had had assumed (hearing the story first from Fox) that it was the Obama administration who made the loan guarantee.  Ummm... NOPE! That, like most of the Shit Obama's wiping off the White House furniture, once again came from BUSH!

BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

I swear he was like King Midas' retarded cousin: Everything he touches turns to shit!

But hey, at least we've got that LIBERAL MEDIA to tell us the whole story, so we won't have to rely on bloggers to give us the...

...oh, yeah. 


(BTW, did you know that October was "National Hit Someone In The Head With a Brick Who Complains About How The LIBERAL Media Is Distorting the Facts And Not Telling The Whole Truth Month?" Tell your friends!)

2 comments:

  1. An even better illustration of the "liberal media" at work--better because it demonstrates how these things more typically work--is the press blackout of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

    The flaks on the right have long perpetuated an absurd, don't-believe-your-lying-eyes myth that the press ignored the teabaggers. The numbers regarding coverage, of course, told a very different story. With the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, we have just the latest example of the kind of movements the press actually makes it a practice to ignore (namely those on the left). On the rare occasions when the demonstrations are mentioned outside of the liberal shows on MSNBC, it's with mockery, dismissiveness, and disdain.

    Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting has been covering this pretty well:
    http://www.fair.org/blog/
    Jim Naureckas had a pretty good piece, there, yesterday about it:
    http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/10/04/whitewashing-the-blackout-of-occupy-wall-street/

    Jim exposes a sleight-of-hand by a writer over at Capital, but he goes easy on the fellow (who claimed there were hundreds of press stories on the demonstrations, but over half of those turned out to be just blog posts). Eric Randall, at the Atlantic, takes issue with the fact that the press spent more time covering its own non-coverage than covering the event itself:
    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/09/media-non-coverage-occupy-wall-street-gets-lots-media-coverage/43013/

    Ignoring such events is standard operating procedure with the corporate press, as is smearing those involved in them. It's been a problem for years.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I seem to notice that whenever violent acts occur during a protest they are attributed by the media to liberals, and not only is it attributed to liberals, but the entire protest is associated with that one act.

    Should a right-winger do something wrong, they are acting on their own and not part of any particular conservative affiliation (or again labeled liberal radical) and most of the time the coverage is scarce...

    This is based off of my observation - not actual numbers...

    ReplyDelete