August 20, 2012
Newsweek's new anti-Obama cover.
It's getting rewarded with big links from Instapundit and Drudge, incentivizing (perhaps) a little less biased coverage of the campaign. We'll see. I doubt it. It could happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
74 comments:
My theory is that they need to recover some modicum of credibility should Romney win..
They need to seamlessly transition from lap dogs to attack dogs.
We'll see. I doubt it. It could happen.
You sure?
I kinda liked Niall Ferguson's book, The West and the Rest.
Newsweek is dialing for dollars. They're so financially desperate that they have finally been driven to do the unthinkable: Attempt to appeal to conservative readers to attract eye-balls and improve their circulation and attract advertisers. Trust me, Tina Baby hasn't undergone a conversion/exorcism any time lately..
Newsweek's covers reek of desperation.
The word is panic.
I guess we're not all Socialists, after all.
Oh noes! The liberal media blabety blabety blah blah...
oh wait...
I guess we're not all Socialists, after all.
The MSM, like Hollywood, are only socialists with other people's money.
Ferguson builds to a strong conclusion:
The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.
Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.
I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.
I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.
Those are the stakes. Ferguson says it as well as it can be said.
Soap opera women may not be a big enough demographic to pay the bills.
They're trying another demographic.
They're not leftists, they're businessmen. There was a confluence of interests with leftists for a while. But it's bad for business now.
Soap opera women are watching something else, TV or something.
That's the Rag that was sold for $1, right? How far has the media fallen? They have licked the ass of a Usurper, who seeks to degrade American citizenship, and void the Constitution, for the last 4 years.
This article is probably frontrunning an Obama loss in the election, just in case. When there is no legal President, then there is no law and no Constitution, so I wouldn't count on it.
They need to the revenue as the libs don't support the Newsweak enough.
So like running a cover with Sarah Palin several years ago it is an attempt to gain conservative and tea party revenue.
Desperate people do desperate things. This rag is toast I will enjoy watching it disappear.
Could we dub her "Too Little, Too Late Tina"?
Ferguson has apparently come to support the candidate I prefer. Alas, he is on my "stupid or overly biased" list of commenters, so I don't read his stuff, even when it's surprising.
I like to imagine that avatars of Krugman, Brooks, Dowd, Zakaria, Friedman, and many others are having a party on that list, thinking that their very intellect and writing talent is the energy that makes the party fun.
Newsweek should be talking about Treason.
Chip S. said...
I guess we're not all Socialists, after all.
The MSM, like Hollywood, are only socialists with other people's money.
That's the only kind of Socialism there is.
Those are the stakes.
Only problem is that Romney and Ryan's budget (at least the parts of it that they will admit to) will actually add to the deficit, not reduce it.
Newsweek should be talking about Treason.
You really need to get over it.
Oh noes! The liberal media blabety blabety blah blah
oh wait. . .
You should direct your snark to your Sort-Of-God president, who's been giving interviews to ET and People because he thinks the media are too hard on him. Apparently after four years of continued fellatio, he's noticing teeth and doesn't like it.
It will be interesting to see if the pro-democrat media want to go down with the Bad Ship ObamaPop.
"Only problem is that Romney and Ryan's budget (at least the parts of it that they will admit to) will actually add to the deficit, not reduce it."
-- Ryan's takes a long time to reach balance because it is based on what could potentially pass. If they had ultimate authority, they could balance it quicker, just like most anyone could if they could snap their fingers and implement policy.
If they had ultimate authority, they could balance it quicker, just like most anyone could if they could snap their fingers and implement policy.
So we are supposed to elect them even if they won't reveal how they are going to balance the budget?
Makes a whole lot of sense.
I'm with Lem - I've been saying for the last week that they're in panic mode. They're realizing that they've been so over the top that they've lost all credibility.
If the Dems fail to rig the election enough and Romney wins, they'll start in with the 'Well, maybe we went a TEENY bit too far. Our bad! We'll redouble our efforts to show you how we can really DIG!' and start doing everything they can to gut everyone associated with Romney, Republicans, and the Tea Party
We'll be back to the 'Grim Milestones' for every military campaign (no mention of the number of countries Obama invaded or bombed), the horrible economic news will be front and center, etc. etc. - Basically, the Bush Years again.
Orion
So we are supposed to elect them even if they won't reveal how they are going to balance the budget?
Hey, your side got Obamacare this way. Now it's our turn.
It's getting rewarded with big links from Instapundit and Drudge, incentivizing (perhaps) a little less biased coverage of the campaign.
Wait - that's new for Instapundit?
Well blow me down,...
Only problem is that Romney and Ryan's budget (at least the parts of it that they will admit to) will actually add to the deficit, not reduce it.
But it's a Republican deficit, not Democrat. Relax!
But it's a Republican deficit, not Democrat. Relax!
Also, all deficits are equivalent, regardless of size. So Obama's just like Reagan!
But it's a Republican deficit, not Democrat.
And of course it increases defense spending, the only kind of government spending that creates jobs, all other government spending destroys jobs . . .
or something like that.
It's a bone being thrown to the otherside in an effort to get attention from a previously disregarded market. It would be a big deal if the story came out after September 1st, particularly in late October. But right now, it is too late in the Democrat primary to change Obama, maybe not too late for the convention (not going to happen), and way too early for general voters to pay attention.
Bonus, when they write the inevitable, "How Romney lost our support"; Newsweek can claim non-bias and point to the story produced this week.
I was watching Bloomberg news this morning and one of the obviously liberal male anchors call Niall Ferguson's article a wet kiss to Paul Ryan in response to the more neutral female anchor's report on the article.
He did so with his head lowered not showing his eyes as his co-anchor looked into the camera.
This is kinda meaningless since it was written by a staunch conservative.
None of the librul mainstays at Newsweek will admit the Obama presidency has been a failure until after the election.
Obama has increased the deficit more than any other president in history.
bad faith democrats blame the R's.
I have a feeling the next issue will be similar, but against Romney. How do you save a dying publication: with sensational and attention-seeking covers. It's not like Tina hasn't used that tactic before.
But she wouldn't do this one in isolation. My guess is the next issue will blast back the other way.
Freder Frederson said...
"Newsweek should be talking about Treason.
You really need to get over it".
What's the penalty for treason?
"So we are supposed to elect them even if they won't reveal how they are going to balance the budget?"
Well then state your case on why we should reelect Obama.
"It will be interesting to see if the pro-democrat media want to go down with the Bad Ship ObamaPop."
I think the liberal media is all in, they're going to do everything within their power to pull and drag Obama's sorry butt across the finish line. Its not going to work this time. Romney-Ryan in a landslide come November.
Freder Frederson said...
If they had ultimate authority, they could balance it quicker, just like most anyone could if they could snap their fingers and implement policy.
So we are supposed to elect them even if they won't reveal how they are going to balance the budget?
Makes a whole lot of sense.
Compare Freder's criticism here to his enthusiasm at Obamacare, which we had to actually PASS before we could find out what the specifics were. The only principle he follows is "no enemies to the left". Some people are so in the tank it's just ridiculous.
We'll see. I doubt it. It could happen.
Newseek may have lost millions of dollars and most of their subscribers, but they haven't lost their minds. Tina Brown would never get invited to another DC cocktail party if she did.
Compare Freder's criticism here to his enthusiasm at Obamacare, which we had to actually PASS before we could find out what the specifics were.
You didn't have access to the legislation? Why are righties asking someone else to do their legwork for them?
WHY O WHY WON'T THE MEDIA LOOK INTO OBAMA????
Why don't you do it yourself?
So we are supposed to elect them even if they won't reveal how they are going to balance the budget?
...says the side whose Senate hasn't voted out a budget in 1,200+ days and counting.
My guess is the next issue will blast back the other way.
Auntie Ann nails it. You can take that to the bank.
It's a bone being thrown to the otherside in an effort to get attention from a previously disregarded market.
Yes,~50% of the American people. Ailes, you magnificent b*stard!
Yeah, it could. But I think I'll wait for the comet from Orion to take me home.
"According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone ... I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)"
From Niall Ferguson's Newsweek article.
garage mahal said...
Compare Freder's criticism here to his enthusiasm at Obamacare, which we had to actually PASS before we could find out what the specifics were.
You didn't have access to the legislation? Why are righties asking someone else to do their legwork for them?
WHY O WHY WON'T THE MEDIA LOOK INTO OBAMA????
Why don't you do it yourself?
How could you possibly interpret my comment as meaning I want the media to read it for me?
If you recall garage Nancy Pelosi told us we had to pass it to find out what was in it, since it was provided to no one before the vote. So how were we supposed to review it?
Why are you such a tool?
@AprilApple
I'm waiting to see a good faith democrat. Haven't seen one since Zell Miller.
The reason Garage is a tool is he got tired of thinking and acting for himself and his family, and gave it all over to the government. Much easier to just do as your told, right Garage?
"Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail."
From Ferguson's article.
I guess I'll read this Newsweek article...in 5 years...at the dentist office...because the only other magazine he'll have is Bible Stories, and that awfull kids one, Oak and acorn? Something like that...Why does ever medical professional have that in their office? Do they get it free?
@Carnifex--take a look at Artur Davis and Douglas Wilder.
"The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline."
From Niall Fersuson's article.
If you recall garage Nancy Pelosi told us we had to pass it to find out what was in it, since it was provided to no one before the vote. So how were we supposed to review it?
Did Pelosi have special access to the legislation that you didn't? That's seriously your claim? Her comment was made a few weeks before it was signed into law.
"Did Pelosi have special access to the legislation that you didn't?"
Uh, yes. Are you a fucking moron?
re: Cover photo, did they intentionally make his head appear out sized?
@garage,
Did Pelosi have special access to the legislation that you didn't?
Are you seriously trying to claim that common citizens had access to the legislation before it was passed?
I do remember two promises from the Democrats:
1) All legislation would be posted 72 hours before being voted on
2) the health care bill deliberations would be televised on C-Span
Not only did Democrats break both those promises, the Democrats locked Republicans out of the discussions.
So, yeah: Pelosi had more access to the draft legislation than even GOP congressmen, despite her deliberate deceptions about transparency.
Did Pelosi have special access to the legislation that you didn't?
Really, it's not like it was crafted in her office or anything...
"the health care bill deliberations would be televised on C-Span"
What, you don't remember the hours and hours of televised debate on ObamaCare? (yeah, me neither)
Are you seriously trying to claim that common citizens had access to the legislation before it was passed?
LOL. Remember: That's what conservatives were having grand mal seizures over? Death panels. Health care townhells. Rocks through Democratic offices, etc.
That's what Pelosi was talking about. The real legislation versus winger hysteria.
Republic of the Battle Hymn
Can you hum a few bars of that? I'm not sure I'm acquainted with that song.
Freder Frederson said...
But it's a Republican deficit, not Democrat.
And of course it increases defense spending, the only kind of government spending that creates jobs, all other government spending destroys jobs . . .
or something like that
sigh
Because, constitutionally, defense is one of those expenditures congress is obligated to do by law.
"Not only did Democrats break both those promises, the Democrats locked Republicans out of the discussions."
-- Just as a note, this is not simply a flourish of language to mean they were secretive and partisan about it. They literally locked the doors to the chambers that they were discussing it in and refused to open it for Republicans.
This has been "fact checked" and found to be largely "counterfactual history," see link: Some wonder if he should lose his Harvard job, but I see no need for that as this is only an opinion piece that nobody, including the author, fact checked.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/a-full-factcheck-of-niall-fergusons-very-bad-
There's a magazine called Newsweek that has a cover and somebody wrote something.
Oh, now I remember that magazine. There were two of them. I used to read them both, this one and that one and compare them. They partly taught me to read. I'd read an essay at the back and go, "wow, what did that guy just now say? Was he for it or against it? Go back, start over and see if he's for it or against it because it was a bit too clever there."
Then they both became meaner and meaner, more one sided then entirely one sided, dumber, more obviously knocked off, and thinner and thinner until barely nothing, entirely mean and one-sided and utterly impossible to read there in the bathroom where the magazine is, grey print on purple background then a box with yellow print on orange background next to a box with pink print on light blue background and I'm sitting there thinking, "shit. This is desktop publishing. It's been taken over by children."
R/V has "fact checked" the article by Ferguson. Oh OK.
LOL. Remember: That's what conservatives were having grand mal seizures over? Death panels. Health care townhells. Rocks through Democratic offices, etc.
Interesting you equate holding representatives accountable to their constituents as somehow being a "townhell", and in the same paragraph you try to imply that the PPACA doesn't includes death panel measures to control costs.
Your ability to deal with reality is slipping, garage.
Hey, how's that indictment for Walker coming along?
Since your link goes to 404 hell, R/V, perhaps you could enlighten us as to the facts Ferguson got wrong.
Hey, how's that indictment for Walker coming along?
I would say pretty close, prosecutors are now investigating the statehouse, as in Walker's administration. Don't worry, you'll be whining soon.
Not good for Obama when his MSM starts turning on him.
The "fact checker" at the Atlantic noted that Ferguson wrongly stated that no private sector jobs had been created during the Obama term. The "fact checker" then points out that 470,000 private jobs have been added. The fact checker did not note that that was just over 120,000 jobs per year, a pitifully small number and not enough to begin to keep up with new entrants into the market. The "fact checker" found a tiny fly in the pound of pepper and crows. Amazing. 470,000 fucking jobs and he is bragging.
@Garage:"I would say pretty close, prosecutors are now investigating the statehouse, as in Walker's administration. Don't worry, you'll be whining soon."
Did you cut and paste this from six months ago? I have seen this comment from you before. Are they investigating the building as well as the people in it? Maybe that is why the super secret grand jury has deliberated so long. Or maybe it is peopled with people happy to get their little stipend for serving. In which case this could go on.
Does it still count as "mainstream media" if it is Newsweek? :)
Did you cut and paste this from six months ago? I have seen this comment from you before.
Nah, this is a new revelation. See here.
Post a Comment