Lazy LA Times Reporter Calls Fred Lazy Because Reporter Needs To Cover Up For Slothful Reporting
LA Times Continues to Lie About Fred Thompson
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
UPDATE BY PEJMAN: We are going to get a report from Finnegan discussing just how lazy Bill Clinton is as a campaigner, right?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
And now, heeeeeere's Erick!
Michael Finnegan hates Fred Thompson. I think that is objectively so. He tried pushing the Fred as abortion lawyer story months ago only to have it blow up in his face. So now he's pushing the "Fred as Disaster" story. Again, he's doing it for the Los Angeles Times. Remember, the Times has feared Fred for months. When Fred was just thinking about running the LA Times ran a hit job on him for playing a racist character on the 1980's show Wiseguy for three episodes.
That leads me back to Finnegan's piece in the Los Angeles Times, which, like Roger Simon's piece in the Politico (for which there was video evidence that Simon reported nothing accurately), completely gets the facts wrong.
So it went at the first -- and last -- stop of the day on Thompson's Clear Conservative Choice bus tour. Thompson scratched the rest of the day's events to avert any chance of snow delaying his return home to a Washington suburb for Christmas, taking a gamble that the shortened workday would not spark new questions about his energy quotient.
The whole day was scratched, and not for Thompson, but for the people in Iowa. The wind is, as I type, gusting over 35 miles per hour in Mason, IA with a wind chill of -9.2º F. There's a 50% chance of more snow. Des Moines is having wind gusts of over 30 mph, with a peak at 11:00 a.m. of near 40 mph. Oh, and the wind chill is -1.7F right now. And it's been that way.
In fact, what Michael Finnegan does not tell you is that while Fred has been plowing through for days in weather like this, Finnegan showed up for exactly one day. And it just so happened to be the day they had to cancel events due to weather.
Here's the other thing:
In Mason City, he told the audience of several dozen that the 2008 election would come down to beating back attacks on conservative principles.
The "several dozen" was between 60 and 80 people at the first event of the morning in weather similar to that which I've just described.
Not only not accurate, but it sure seems that between the two of them, Michael Finnegan is much lazier than Fred Thompson.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Merry Christmas — Comments (13) »
Lazy LA Times Reporter Calls Fred Lazy Because Reporter Needs To Cover Up For Slothful Reporting 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Here's why I think that:
Increasingly, the people willing to buy a legacy media newspaper or watch Washington Week In Review lean liberal. (Many of them lean more sharply than the Leaning Tower of Pisa.) Those people WANT to hear snotty things about Republicans. Often. So much, in fact, that they expect to see those things in the newspapers they'll buy or the TV shows they'll watch. (Papers/shows that don't say those things won't draw their business.)
And, if those snotty things about the GOP turn out to be sorta---and even in some cases utterly---wrong, many of these readers don't mind. It feels so good to read those things that the issue of whether they're actually accurate or not is, honestly, a secondary concern. At best. And, anyhoo, any corrections to a page A1 hitjob that simply can't be avoided can always run on page A27.
The MSM knows this. So, who cares if their reporting about hick Christianist Republicans is wrong? The audience the MSM really cares about doesn't. For, if that audience did care, the reporting wouldn't be this bad.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
time. The libs I know consume the dogma being fed to them by the Drive Bys and have no curiosity whatsoever. This is going to serve them less well by the year because their audience is dwindling very rapidly.
I've never known less curious and more fact-challenged people than libs generally.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Thanks for going to trouble of researching this and posting it.
Visit The Scratching Post!
Normally I would accept any claim challenging the accuracy or validity of anything printed in the LA Times -- they are complete and total leftist hacks (coming from someone that lived in Southern California most of his life comparing the acceptably libertarian leaning Orange County Register with the Times) -- but your numbers intrigued me.
I'm not sure where you got the 60 to 80 figure, if you are on-site and took the count yourself or not, but the inaccuracy of that estimate could prove that the reporter's estimate of several dozen is accurate.
Your estimate allows for a 25% to 33% inaccuracy. If the reporter meant more than 2 or 3 dozen by the words "several dozen", we can safely put his estimate at 48. Based on your range and its accuracy, the actual number could be as low as 40.
But ultimately, an estimate variation of 12 people in a crowd that size, without a headcount, is not something to be too alarmed about.
Over the past seven years, I have conducted events on almost a monthly basis with an attendance averaging 150 people. I always made a physical headcount mid event. It was always interesting hearing my wife's or other people's impressions and perceptions about the number in attendance.
Things that can cause incredible variations in estimates don't always seem obvious. The number of children attending, how interactive the speaker is, the excitement of the audience, applause lines, laugh lines, length of the event, how much the main speaker lingers after the event, how long the audience lingers and socializes after the event, if the attendees gathered long before the start or if they filed in on time, cold or hot venue, quality of acoustics/amplification, seating arrangement, presence of non-seated people, etc. all cause variations in estimates.
Other people's estimates were as much as 25% to 150% off my headcounts!
There is also the built in bias of the estimator -- both pro and con -- that cannot be dismissed. I recognize the probable built-in bias of the LA Times estimate, but I also recognize the other estimate might be subject to bias as well.
but rather with the assertion that it was a weak turnout---given that was a day that weather basically cancelled everything.
Was the article about this past weekend? If so I can confirm travel was a terrible idea, with dozens of vehicles scattered in the ditches along the interstate. I would say any turnout means a lot in that case.
The "several dozen" in scare quotes, doesn't 60 to 80 people convert to several dozen? I mean it's more than two dozen isn't it? Possibly said reporter is not only incapable of hiding his bile but he may need a calculator more than I do.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
is within the margin of error at worst, and correct at best. But like I said, he said it as if it were a bad thing. Like somehow Fred is supposed to draw hundreds on a day that just about everyone were snowed in!
...before I even saw your article.
He should be a believer about now.
“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in,” - Fred Thompson
I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but whenever I search Google News for stories on Fred Thompson there are always these types of stories from the LA Times at the top of the list.
The surprising thing is that this wasn't happening until right after the last debate. It seems like they bought as many keywords as they could to get a higher search rank on their stories. Even stories from back in June are ranking up near the top.
I'm not saying conspiracy or anything, I just find it interesting.
The MSM has an agenda. It is Leftist.
The MSM will creatively 'arrange' 'facts' to bolster its story.
The MSM will lie when facts won't lend themselves to creativity.
The MSM is populated largely by people who were only taught to string sentences together, but lack the education, experience, knowledge, or curiosity to understand what it is they are writing about. And they don't care.
The MSM considers ethics only for those they investigate.
The MSM has no problem trashing those they have an ideological dispute with.
The National Equirer can be taken at face value, the nytimes can not.
Watchdogs of our democracy. I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy.
Accuracy in reporting is a thing of the past--if it ever was a thing. These reporters are all too happy to grill Thompson for being lazy--namely in their own laziness. The same way they were lazy with Romney. Turns out there are no less than 4 history books that cite King as having marched with Romney. Those could have very easily been researched, but our dear liberal media decided it would be better to just run the son of a (Republican) civil rights leader through the mud.
No class whatsoever.
Unlike Thompson who appears to have actually cared about those who would attend his events.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
I located Mr Thompson's Christmas ad over the weekend and strongly suggest everyone watch it. The message is strong. Compare it to others.
Carl
...it was a petty, vindictive little piece aimed at punishing FDT for not allowing him (Simon) and his buddy into a certain meeting w/a small town newspaper editor. Simon really revealed his petty side there.
"But" I have to say that the FDT campaign is somewhat bogged down and sluggish. I don't blame Fred for that. No way. His campaign needs to learn to "multi-task", however. Yes there's Iowa and Iowa is important. With its measly 7 electoral votes, I believe. The FDT campaign needs to pursue high profile endorsements. Not politicians or newspapers but significant endorsements. Such as the Teamsters. 1.5 million members. Still unclaimed as I understand it. And their plight to stop the Mexican truckers from streaming in and stealing Teamster jobs. Fred ought to be on the phone w/J. Hoffa offering his help and possibly picking up that endorsement in the process. It would be a huge shot in the arm for the FDT campaign. He'd be an instant national hero. Lets remember that Ronald Reagan cherished that Teamster endorsement both in '80 & '84. And with the Teamster endorsement most likely would follow an endorsement by OOIDA / Todd Spencer, if pursued. And other related endorsements. Plus the support ($) that would accompany them.
Recognition, Pursuit and Capture of these sorts of endorsements that actually relate to hard working Middle Americans. Go Fred. Do it. Get 'er dun. Darvin Dowdy
With news distribution these days. There is such a monoculture that stuff like this can make it onto the pages of a major daily and sit unchallenged.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777