MSNBC won’t tell you the truth: Our view:
Given the way denial works, it’s hard for people to understand how dumb and fake the New York Times is. That said, we’re not sure we’ve ever seen the Times as dumb or as strange as it is today.
For starters, what’s the featured story at the top of the Sports Thursday section? Manny Pacquiao, a boxer from the Philippines, doesn’t agree with Barack Obama’s new position on same sex marriage! At one point in a multiply-puzzling report, Greg Bishop weirdly writes this:
BISHOP (5/17/12): It was this revived interest in biblical study, [boxing promoter Bob] Arum said, that led Pacquiao to express his views on same-sex marriage, which Arum said he does not share. Arum noted that Pacquiao is Catholic and conservative and from a country where most people hold similar beliefs. Pacquiao is also an elected official [in the Philippines], Arum said, and thus should be allowed to take a stance on social issues, even an unpopular one.Go ahead—enjoy a good laugh! According to Arum, elected officials are allowed to state a position on social issues! But we really chuckled at the highlighted statement, in which Arum notes that the Philippines is a country “where most people hold similar beliefs.” There is no sign that Bishop knows that the same is true of the U.S. In his newspaper’s brand-new public survey, 42 percent said they favor same-sex marriage, 51 percent said they do not!
Bishop’s report was strange and jumbled throughout. But then, we were struck by the weird reporting all through today’s Times, culminating with this lengthy front-page report about the killing of Trayvon Martin.
Truly, the Times is astounding. In Serge Kovaleski’s report, the paper clings to a favorite script, in which the Sanford police bungled the investigation on the night of the killing.
The headline speaks of “police missteps.” This is Kovaleski’s nugget:
KOVALESKI (5/17/12): An examination of the Sanford Police Department’s handling of the case shows a series of missteps—including sloppy work—and circumstances beyond its control that impeded the investigation and may make it harder to pursue a case that is already difficult enough.According to Kovaleski, the department engaged in “a series of missteps, including sloppy work.” He ends us listing four examples.
(We're ignoring the third item on his five-item list, in which we’re told that “the police were not able to cover the crime scene to shield evidence from the rain.” As it turns out, there was no dome on that gated community! So some of the blood washed away!)
How absurd are the four remaining alleged missteps? Kovaleski is so desperate for examples that he even writes this:
KOVALESKI: The police did not test Mr. Zimmerman for alcohol or drug use that night, and one witness said the lead investigator quickly jumped to a conclusion that it was Mr. Zimmerman, and not Mr. Martin, who cried for help during the struggle.One witness said that the lead investigator jumped to a conclusion? Yes, he actually wrote that! For the record, it has repeatedly been said that this same lead investigator wanted Zimmerman arrested that night. Kovaleski doesn’t address this widely-stated point.
Kovaleski struggles mightily to come up with complaints. “On the night of the shooting, door-to-door canvassing was not exhaustive enough,” he says—then notes that this is the opinion of “a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation.” (Note: On its face, that means this is the opinion of only one such official.) And not only that! “The police took only one photo at the scene of any of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries...before paramedics tended to him.” Much later, Kovaleski notes that many such injury photos were taken when Zimmerman reached the police station.
This is remarkably worthless reporting. (Does the Times do any other kind?) And uh-oh! Very late in his lengthy report, Kovaleski slips a piece of new information past unsuspecting readers:
KOVALESKI: As for the officer at the scene who took the single full-face photo of Mr. Zimmerman—he suffered a nose fracture and other injuries during the struggle—he called an investigator “in a panic” over his failure to download it sooner, according to a person familiar with the case. Other photos of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries were later shot at police headquarters, although he had been cleaned up by paramedics by then.Say what? Zimmerman suffered a broken nose? This is a key piece of information; it was revealed just this week. But if you read the New York Times, you'll see it hustled past you in an aside in paragraph 27, as you read ridiculous pap designed to maintain a preferred script.
The New York Times buried that key piece of news—but the Times has done better than MSNBC, The One True Liberal Channel. This cable “news” channel worked hard, for weeks, to convince mistreated viewers that Zimmerman couldn’t have suffered a broken nose. For weeks, Lawrence O’Donnell and a quack named Charles Blow engaged in medical malpractice, pretending there was no possible way Zimmerman broke his news. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/6/12. Other players on this quack-laden channel advanced this same bogus theme.)
They played their liberal viewers for fools, engaging in truly repulsive behavior about a possible murder case. This week, the truth has emerged—and according to Nexis, George Zimmerman's nose hasn’t been mentioned on this horrible channel all week. (Nexis covers MSNBC programs from 5 PM on.)
Zimmerman did get a broken nose. This fact has been widely reported on CNN and Fox; last night, it was even reported on NBC Nightly News. But if you watch MSNBC, you still haven’t heard this fact—after weeks of being told that it couldn’t be true! We liberals finally have a way to enjoy epistemic closure!
Everybody knows about this new information but us!
From its scammy former Rhodes Scholar on down, MSNBC is a rolling disgrace. O’Donnell and Blow are considerably worse. Fox has engaged in such conduct for years. At last, we liberals have a corporate disgrace—one we can call our own!