McHenry County Blog

To its credit the Associated Press (reporter Sophia Tareen) wrote a story about the Illinois Tea Party endorsement for Congressman Don Manzullo.

But, wait a minute.

This Associated Press article by Sophia Tareen is stimulated by the Illinois Tea Party's having endorsed Congressman Don Manzullo over Congressman Adam Kinzinger. How on earth a 2010 Sarah Palin endorsement of Kingzinger is relevant is beyond understanding.

In its first paragraph reporter Tareen mentions a 2010 endorsement of opponent Adam Kinzinger by Sarah Palin.

What’s that all about?

And worse, the Chicago Tribune, in at least it’s online edition gives Palin’s old endorsement equal coverage with the Illinois Tea Party’s current endorsement.

This is an example of why readers distrust the mainstream media.

= = = = =
I felt so strong about this bias, I called the Associate Press in Chicago. The Bureau Chief’s assistant sent me to an editor who knew nothing about the article.

She had to look it up using “Illinois Tea Party” as search words.

“Are you calling from Sarah Palin’s campaign?” she asked.

“No, I’m calling from this is why we distrust the mainstream media,” I replied.

She repeated “This is why we distrust the mainstream media,” pausing while it sunk it.

“Is it incorrect?”

“No, it’s out of context,” I replied.

“That’s your opinion.”

“What does a 2010 endorsement have to do with a 2012 endorsement?”

“That’s your opinion.”

“And that’s why AP is going down the tubes,” I said before thanking her for her time.

“Help Us Take Back Our State and Our Nation…Rain or Shine” is what two of the headlines that are close together say on the pig roast invitation below from the McHenry Township Republican Central Committee.

Fun, games, music cheap price ($30 for two).

And every candidate who hopes to get votes from McHenry Township voters will be in attendance.

Yesterday while picking my son up at school a little after 2 o’clock, I heard the female newsreader talking about Governor Pat Quinn’s proposed “one percent” income tax increase.

Did whoever wrote the script pass junior high school math?

Those who have darker views of this gross mistake might wonder if WBBM management is trying to frame the 33% income tax hike issue in a manner that might dampen down opposition.

You know whenever a news source says the increase is “one percent” or even “one percentage point” that it is trying to minimize the magnitude of the increase.

If a news source uses both “33%” and “one percentage point” in its report, then it’s attempting to describe what’s happening in a more rational manner.

This is not the first instance of media bias on this issue that I have noticed.

Here we go again.

The liberal apologists in the media are promoting the Governor Pat Quinn’s 33% income tax increase as a “one percent increase.”

Maybe it’s not their liberal bent.

Maybe they have problems with math.

The first notice of this impairment I heard was on WBBM News Radio 78 while picking up my son from school just after 2 PM. The announcer led into the tax hike story by saying it was a

“one percent increase.”

The reporter on the story got it right.

He identified it immediately thereafter as a “33% increase.”

Charles Thomas incorrectly describes Governor Pat Quinn's proposal as a "one percent increase."

hen, on the ABC Channel 7 newscast, Charles Thomas, the man who replaced Andy Shaw, said it was

a “one percent increase.”

Capitol Fax had this incorrect story up from shortly before Governor Pat Quinn's 33% income tax hike proposal was made.

I later noticed that Rich Miller at Capitol Fax Blog headlined his income tax article with the incorrect “one percent tax hike for schools.”

Specifically:

Budget address live blog – Quinn proposes one percent tax hike for schools

Wednesday, Mar 10, 2010
• Have at it in comments. Thanks.

That was just before Quinn’s noon speech.

Added later:

* I’m told that the one percent tax surcharge would bring in somewhere between $2.8 and $3 billion. Wish I knew that when I was on live TV and was asked the question cold.

None of the readers for over six hours pointed out that Governor Pat Quinn's proposal was for a 33% income tax hike, not the 1% hike Rich Miller pomoted with his incorrect headline and description.

It was not until more than SIX hours later that anyone corrected Miller:

- Elin – Wednesday, Mar 10, 10 @ 6:13 pm:A one percent tax increase would bring in far less than $2.8 billion or $3 billion. A 33 percent tax increase, on the other hand…

And, as of over nineteen hours after it was originally posted, it remains incorrect.

But, it served its purpose, if, indeed, it was deliberate and not a mistake.

Reporters and political opinion leaders all over the state were told it was a “one percent tax hike.”

Can it be that reporters really so bad at very simple math?

Maybe so.

Even the Chicago Sun-Times got it wrong:

Even the Chicago Sun-Times wrote one percent was the size of the tax hike. Message to liberal tax hikers: one percentage point divided by three percentage points equals 33%, not 1%.

That Chicago Tribune headline is one of the more misleading I have ever read.

There is a party that is “off balance.”

It is the Democratic Party.

First John McCain steals the Labor Day weekend media coverage by announcing his vice presidential candidate right after Barack Obama makes his acceptance speech.

A woman no less.

The Lefties are so upset they float the rumor that Sarah Pahlin’s Down Syndrome baby son is really her 17-year old daughter’s.

Stop me if you think I am ascribing too much advance planning to the McCain campaign.

Next it is announced that Palin’s daughter is pregnant.

McCain’s campaign captures another news cycle.

Before you jump all over me, remember that McCain knew about the teenager’s pregnancy before he selected her mother as his vice presidential candidate.

Consider some constituencies Sarah Palin appeals to.

• Of course, conservative women, but not necessarily the older ones who stayed home to raise their kids,
• Mothers who work outside the home–those who worked and are working while raising children,
• Then, those who have discovered they were carrying a Down Syndrome baby. Some aborted them and others delivered them,
• And, now, the mothers who have discovered that their daughters disappointed them by becoming pregnant at too young an age.

Here is a woman all can relate to.

Was the revelation of the 17-year olds pregnancy a planned part of the McCain campaign?

The American Specator’s J.R. Dunn wrote on Labor Day

“Look at this (not the pregnancy announcement, but the day after Obama’s speech announcement of Palin as V.P, choice) from a strategic perspective. There is no huge convention bounce for Obama; the Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama but three points ahead of McCain.

“That smashing sound you heard was Obama’s bounce being run over by a truck. McCain shoved it into the street, first by offering his ‘congratulations’ in the middle of Obama’s speech on Thursday night, then by dropping Palin on the Dems less than twelve hours later.

“Every last campaign attempts to rain on the opposition’s convention, but never in my experience has it been carried off as slickly and completely as this. Although the left and its press allies pretend Palin is a disaster for the GOP, the precise opposite is the case.”

Dunn points out that McCain’s 2008 campaign is not like his seat-of-the-pants 2002 effort.

“This time, he’s working out this campaign move by move, thinking five or more moves ahead…He’s knows exactly how he’s going to use Palin.”

Of course, there is the Hillary play.

In addition, Dunn talks about using her in the energy part of the campaign. I have suggested her corruption fighting credentials will be used to emphasize that Obama has none.

Read Dunn’s splendid conclusion:

“I think McCain is sitting across the board and looking at Obama and thinking, ‘Your move, ace.’

“McCain has moved out his queen, and she, as queens will do, is dominating the board. Let’s see how the Dems deal with that.”

And Dunn didn’t even know about what very well could be a calculated move on McCain’s part to reveal Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy.

Not only in the Democratic Party off balance, but, obviously so is the Left Stream media.

How else to explain the Tribune headline and what I found on Channel Two’s web page last night?

The word “scandal” is no where in Mike Flannery’s story.

The veteran political reporter uses the phrase “startling revelations.”

I emailed him a complaint suggesting perhaps the CBS folks who wrote the headline wanted to bring back the Scarlet Letter.

From his Blackberry on the convention floor, I received the following answer:

“Did not know that. I will request a new headline.”

Here is the new headline:

“Ill. Republicans Stand Behind Beleaguered Palin”

Fair enough.

In the “they are not on our side” file, stick the Northwest Herald’s assignment of reporter Jenn Wiant to cover the Democratic National Convention in Denver, but no one to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

No matter, these two Illinois bloggers will keep you up-to-date on the GOP:

Lots of stuff posted already.

That Chicago Tribune headline is one of the more misleading I have ever read.

There is a party that is “off balance.”

It is the Democratic Party.

First John McCain steals the Labor Day weekend media coverage by announcing his vice presidential candidate right after Barack Obama makes his acceptance speech.

A woman no less.

The Lefties are so upset they float the rumor that Sarah Pahlin’s Down Syndrome baby son is really her 17-year old daughter’s.

Stop me if you think I am ascribing too much advance planning to the McCain campaign.

Next it is announced that Palin’s daughter is pregnant.

McCain’s campaign captures another news cycle.

Before you jump all over me, remember that McCain knew about the teenager’s pregnancy before he selected her mother as his vice presidential candidate.

Consider some constituencies Sarah Palin appeals to.

• Of course, conservative women, but not necessarily the older ones who stayed home to raise their kids,
• Mothers who work outside the home–those who worked and are working while raising children,
• Then, those who have discovered they were carrying a Down Syndrome baby. Some aborted them and others delivered them,
• And, now, the mothers who have discovered that their daughters disappointed them by becoming pregnant at too young an age.

Here is a woman all can relate to.

Was the revelation of the 17-year olds pregnancy a planned part of the McCain campaign?

The American Specator’s J.R. Dunn wrote on Labor Day

“Look at this (not the pregnancy announcement, but the day after Obama’s speech announcement of Palin as V.P, choice) from a strategic perspective. There is no huge convention bounce for Obama; the Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama but three points ahead of McCain.

“That smashing sound you heard was Obama’s bounce being run over by a truck. McCain shoved it into the street, first by offering his ‘congratulations’ in the middle of Obama’s speech on Thursday night, then by dropping Palin on the Dems less than twelve hours later.

“Every last campaign attempts to rain on the opposition’s convention, but never in my experience has it been carried off as slickly and completely as this. Although the left and its press allies pretend Palin is a disaster for the GOP, the precise opposite is the case.”

Dunn points out that McCain’s 2008 campaign is not like his seat-of-the-pants 2002 effort.

“This time, he’s working out this campaign move by move, thinking five or more moves ahead…He’s knows exactly how he’s going to use Palin.”

Of course, there is the Hillary play.

In addition, Dunn talks about using her in the energy part of the campaign. I have suggested her corruption fighting credentials will be used to emphasize that Obama has none.

Read Dunn’s splendid conclusion:

“I think McCain is sitting across the board and looking at Obama and thinking, ‘Your move, ace.’

“McCain has moved out his queen, and she, as queens will do, is dominating the board. Let’s see how the Dems deal with that.”

And Dunn didn’t even know about what very well could be a calculated move on McCain’s part to reveal Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy.

Not only in the Democratic Party off balance, but, obviously so is the Left Stream media.

How else to explain the Tribune headline and what I found on Channel Two’s web page last night?

The word “scandal” is no where in Mike Flannery’s story.

The veteran political reporter uses the phrase “startling revelations.”

I emailed him a complaint suggesting perhaps the CBS folks who wrote the headline wanted to bring back the Scarlet Letter.

From his Blackberry on the convention floor, I received the following answer:

“Did not know that. I will request a new headline.”

Here is the new headline:

“Ill. Republicans Stand Behind Beleaguered Palin”

Fair enough.

In the “they are not on our side” file, stick the Northwest Herald’s assignment of reporter Jenn Wiant to cover the Democratic National Convention in Denver, but no one to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

No matter, these two Illinois bloggers will keep you up-to-date on the GOP:

Lots of stuff posted already.

The Left Stream Media has not a clue what to do with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

You know, of course, I ran for governor against Ron Blagojevich in 2002 as a Libertarian.

I got noticed in the LA Times magazine for my role in the fight against rape in prison, but my name was not mentioned the Sunday before the election in the Chicago Tribune.

So I watch for slights of “lost” candidates. Media bias, stuff like that.

During the New Hampshire primary, I was watching CNN.

That was the primary where Rudy Guiliani got 9% and Ron Paul got 8%. Guiliani’s name was on the pie chart, but Paul’s was not.

On the Democrats’ pie chart, Richardson had his name on the screen with only 1% of the vote.

That is about the most blatant media bias I have seen.

But, when the enclosed came from Scott Bludorn, the fun-loving field director of Illinois Ron Paul campaign, it brought out thoughts for what I have written above about CNN’s blatant bias.

You might think CNN was publicly financed and they thought Ron Paul had a chance to win and, when he did, would take away their tax subsidy, which he would, if they had one.

The Left Stream Media has not a clue what to do with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

You know, of course, I ran for governor against Ron Blagojevich in 2002 as a Libertarian.

I got noticed in the LA Times magazine for my role in the fight against rape in prison, but my name was not mentioned the Sunday before the election in the Chicago Tribune.

So I watch for slights of “lost” candidates. Media bias, stuff like that.

During the New Hampshire primary, I was watching CNN.

That was the primary where Rudy Guiliani got 9% and Ron Paul got 8%. Guiliani’s name was on the pie chart, but Paul’s was not.

On the Democrats’ pie chart, Richardson had his name on the screen with only 1% of the vote.

That is about the most blatant media bias I have seen.

But, when the enclosed came from Scott Bludorn, the fun-loving field director of Illinois Ron Paul campaign, it brought out thoughts for what I have written above about CNN’s blatant bias.

You might think CNN was publicly financed and they thought Ron Paul had a chance to win and, when he did, would take away their tax subsidy, which he would, if they had one.