Senator Johnson Spin Machine Already Revved Up

The Democrat Party outlet at Badlands Blue is apparently upset that a little objective reporting slipped through from the Argus Leader.

This morning, Pat Powers at the South Dakota War College pointed out that the Argus Leader's report of a congressional clout ranking was a little (I know, hard to believe from the Argus) biased.

The report shows our South Dakota delegation ranked with Rep. Stephanie Herseth at 287th out of 435 in the House, John Thune at 77th out of 100 in the Senate, and Tim Johnson at 90th out of 100 in the Senate.

Now, none of our delegation really has anything to crow about, but notice what the Argus Leader headline this morning originally said: "Study: Thune, Herseth Sandlin lack power in Congress." What about our Senator Tim Johnson, who's facing re-election this year? The implication by the headline: "Senator Johnson? Him? Oh, he's not 'lacking in power,' oh, not at all! No SIR!"

In fact, you have to read down about three paragraphs into the story to find out, gee, Senator Johnson is, um, a little 'lacking in power' in Congress, too. Maybe the MOST lacking of our three? Hmmm. How could the headline have missed this? Couldn't be that imaginary liberal bias, could it? No, not from the Argus Leader, a newspaper above the reproach of bias accusations.

Perhaps most interestingly of all, later in the day the Argus changed the headline to "S.D. delegation lacks power in congress." Now we finally have an accurate, objective headline...even though you still have to read down three paragraphs to find out where Senator Johnson stands, after you've read past the first paragraph telling us about only two members of our three-member delegation (the two which aren't up for re-election, by the way):

Sen. John Thune and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin wield little power on Capitol Hill, primarily because of their low seniority, according to an annual nonpartisan study.

It's this redo of the headline that has Badlands Blue's underwear in a bunch.

They whine:

Because one right-wing blogger throws a hissy fit? Is that all it takes for the Argus Leader to ditch its journalistic integrity?

Pointing out blatant liberal bias is a "hissy fit?" Using objective wording means "ditch[ing] its journalistic integrity?"

That's usually what you hear from liberals anytime something gets reported accurately (or even close to it), or if a problem in the Democrat Party gets so big that the "mainstream" media can't ignore it anymore. They start whining about "compromising journalistic integrity" (guess what: that train left the station a LONG time ago, headed Left), an imaginary "conservative bias" and try to use any truth that squeezes through as "proof" that there is no liberal bias in the "mainstream" media.

If the Argus Leader would at least acknowledge, "We lean Left, and are going to favor Left," at least we'd getting what was being "advertised." Kudos to the War College and others for holding the "mainstream" media accountable for what they claim to be.

Wouldn't it be nice if liberals and conservatives could just disagree on the issues, without all the misrepresentations and distortions?

Wouldn't it be nice if we really had an objective "mainstream" media, instead of one dominated by liberal mouthpieces for the Democrat Party?

Why the Argus Leader is Most Derelict in Hildygate

The South Dakota Moderate raises the question: why is the Argus Leader catching the most heat for the absence of reporting on the alleged theft of monies from Hildebrand Tewes.

It's a valid question, but I believe I know why (at least why I think so).

Many of the points SDM brings up are valid for consideration.

However, many news outlets name names without criminal charges actually being filed, the Dan Sutton affair being one of those. So while I understand the need and reason for restraint, it's not at all without precedent to name a suspect before the suspect has actually been charged. Especially when the victim is naming the alleged perpetrator.

Also I believe the Argus Leader, as the state's largest newspaper, has the primary obligation to go after the story.

The Argus Leader is also the hometown newspaper where this incident occurred.

The Argus Leader is also about six blocks or 6/10 of a mile from Hildebrand Tewes--yet Roll Call, over 1000 miles away, has given us more information in the last week than the Argus Leader has.

Another consideration: if no criminal charges have been filed, why not? If Hildebrand Tewes is naming names, I would expect charges to be filed. Or at least an investigation underway? If these are not happening, then the absence of those activities is a story the Argus should be investigating and reporting on, at the very least.

When you couple all these factors together with the multitude of past incidents of blatant bias on the part of the Argus, I think the charges of burying the story are very well founded. That may not be the case, but I think such a possibility would do more than just cross the mind of a reasonable person who weighed all the evidence.

The Abortion Story that Wasn't

In today's "mainstream" media we have not an absence of bias, but a bias of absence.

The latest abortion statistics for South Dakota were released the week before Christmas. Perhaps the most striking thing found in these statistics is in the section where the reasons given for the abortions was provided. The single largest percentage was because "The mother did not desire to have the child." Already large the previous year at 79.5%, it increased even more to 84.6%. Meanwhile, abortions for rape/incest/health constituted a combined 1.9% of all abortions.

So we passed up an opportunity to ban abortion for the 1.9% that meet the criteria of the exceptions demanded by the majority of the voters in 2006.

So 84.6% of abortions in South Dakota were done not for rape, not for incest, not for the life of the mother, and not for the health of the mother, but as retroactive birth control. The child inconvenienced the mother, so the child was disposed of.

We sacrifice the 98.1% that all but the most extreme abortion supporters say should be saved, in order to keep the right to kill the 1.9% that some say don't deserve to live.

Now, about 10 days later, you'd expect to have seen this reported and discussed in any number of places, right? Wrong.

In the Argus Leader on Dec. 22, you finally find mention of this reason 9 paragraphs into the article.

Another Argus Leader story, nothing.

At KELO, nothing.

Sioux City Journal, nothing.

Yankton Daily Press, nothing.

Rapid City Journal, nothing.

Now I'm just curious why almost all the media outlets in South Dakota missed the most impactful statistic in this report, and the Argus Leader only skirted it half-way through their article with no specific number mentioned?

Was it media bias?

Was it that the reporters didn't consider the reasons women are aborting their children--the reasons we continue to have this debate in the first place--to be important?

Was it just a case of the media acting like sheep, with one following essentially the same scant story details as all the others?

Was it just sloppy journalism?

Argus Leader Caught With Their Left Pants Leg Down

Greg Belfrage of Dakota Watercooler now has a transcript of Dan Scott's recent speech regarding Sioux Falls development.

As you can see from previous postings at the Dakota Watercooler, South Dakota War College and other places, it's raised quite a stink...mainly coming from the Argus Leader.

When discussing the development of the Sioux Falls community, Scott said, "So if you just can't bring yourself to catch the excitement, then at least stay out of the way, because there is a bunch of us here that have a city to build."

Randall Beck had a completely snotty op/ed about Scott's speech which really distorted the whole context of what he said. What the Argus was so upset about was more likely the shots Scott took at the Argus at the beginning of his speech. The Argus knew those comments about their liberal bias wouldn't get much traction with the public (the public knows too well that the Argus is undeniably biased to the Left), so they took something from the speech they felt they could get some mileage out of, if they bent it completely out of context.

Go read the text of Scott's speech at the Dakota Watercooler and I believe you'll see that what he said was nothing more than a motivational statement that didn't disparage anyone.

Snitch or Informant?

I'll admit up front I'm always suspicious of the mainstream media; I know, they rarely if ever show any bias (and certainly never display any sympathies toward dirtbag criminals), but darn it sometimes I just can't help myself.

When I saw the headline in the Argus Leader today, "Snitch evidence to be allowed at trial," my radar went off, so I read more:

A jailhouse snitch was not working for the government when he began obtaining statements from an accused killer about the rape and murder of a Wyoming runaway, a judge ruled Friday.

Circuit Judge Steven Jensen's ruling strengthens the state's case against James Strahl, 39, for the 1998 killing of William O'Hare, 52, of Beresford. But it remains unclear how much snitch evidence will be allowed in court.

Why was this guy referred to as a "snitch" and not by the more professional term "informant" or even "whistle-blower." After all, if you snitch on a Republican or conservative, you get elevated to the level of "whistle-blower." But it seems if you provide information on a murderer and possible rapist, you're a "snitch."

I Googled the news for "snitch" and other than this story, only found nine stories that used the word "snitch." Of these nine, four of them used the word in italics, either in a quote, or to denote the word as a slang term for informant.

Maybe there's nothing to it; I just found the Argus' choice of words, shall we say, interesting.

What is a Hate Crime?

Today's Argus Leader talks about a "spike" in "hate crimes" in Sioux Falls.

The article points out that it's probably not a spike in "hate," just a change in the reporting apparatus that makes it look like more.

Regarding "hate crimes" themselves, though: have you ever seen a "love crime?" Have you ever seen someone murder, rape, steal, vandalize, bribe, or threaten a person because they loved them? In practically every case, someone commits a crime against another person because they have disdain toward the rights and humanity of the victim.

The very idea of a "hate crime" is silly.

What's even more serious, though, is that with hate crimes, we bring forth an Orwellian "thought police" where we punish people not for what they've done, but for what they think and feel:

In federal court, if a crime can be proven to be motivated by a bias, it could lead to a stiffer prison sentence, said U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley.

Federal judges have discretionary sentencing guidelines, which allow them to add more time to a defendant's prison term if convicted for a hate crime, he said.

"If we have a hate crime motivation, it can be a three level increase," Jackley said. "But we can't use that in a sex offense case."

Do we really want to start punishing people because of their thoughts and emotions? Do we really want to go down that road?

In any crime classified as a "hate crime," would that have been a crime with our without knowing anything about the perpetrator's motive? The motive is irrelevant, other than in investigating the crime and potentially needing it to tie the perpetrator to the crime.

A murder would be illegal whether the perpetrator "loved" or "hated" or was ambivalent about his victim. An assault would still be illegal whether the perpetrator "loved," "hated," or was ambivalent toward his victim.

"Hate crimes" are simply a way for feel-good liberals to try and regulate attitudes and emotions through the criminal justice system. That, and to provide a way to punish people who speak out about an immoral lifestyle, or don't want to associate with others who live an immoral lifestyle.

Is reducing prejudice a good thing? Of course. But when you start implementing criminal punishments for what a person thinks or feels, you've just slid a LONG way down a very treacherous slope.

Gannett Eliminating 100 Department Head Positions

According to Poynter Online, Gannett, the parent company of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, is eleminating 100 department head positions.

You might recall that a few weeks ago, Gannett was one of the media outlets in the tank for the homosexual agenda, contributing $15,000 to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) convention.

I guess liberal bias just isn't selling as well as it used to...

HT to Free Republic.