Michelle Kosinski; Iowa flood coverage; fake canoe stunt; Today Show

I have been watching the coverage of the Iowa floods for about a week on the Today Show. I have noted the absence of Michelle Kosinski from any such coverage until this morning.

Michelle Kosinski handling a prior story


Kosinski is the "reporter" who was caught reporting from a canoe live almost three years ago during some relatively minor flooding in New Jersey. The problem occurred when two men walked past her canoe revealing the water to be only ankle-high. The incident became notorious and the subject of blooper reels and internet mirth. I still receive google traffic from people researching the incident. Newsbusters received record traffic over this incident. [I wonder what NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert thought of the incident at the time.]

Michelle Kosinski canoe incident - 2005


I could not help but remember Kosinski's prior experience with flood coverage as I watched her this morning. I found myself paying closer attention than normal as I scrutinized everything she said and every piece of film that accompanied her report.

I would love to know the decision making process that resulted in Kosinski travelling to Iowa (whether at all or after one week had elapsed) to cover this story.

• Did NBC figure that three years was long enough for the viewers to forget the canoe incident?
• Did NBC delay Kosinski's involvement in the Iowa story because of the 2005 canoe incident?
• Did NBC even remember the canoe incident?
• Did they let Kosinski go to Iowa only if she promised to stay out of canoes?
• Were NBC's editors and producers extra careful in reviewing the report before putting it on the air?
• Did NBC figure that since the flooding was real this time, there would not be a need for a staged event, thus making Kosinski less likely to pull another stunt?
• Was the original canoe stunt even Kosinski's idea - or was it suggested by the Today Show producers, thus making Kosinski a mere scapegoat?
• Does NBC simply not care how it is perceived anymore?

The MSM/DNC must be the only employer for whom you can continue to work despite being caught defrauding your customers live on TV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsbusters posts Michelle Kosinski's history.

Shroud of Turin; Matt Lauer's teleprompter thinks Jesus died in "one A.D."

I already knew that in order to host the Today Show, one had to pass some sort of atheist litmus test. It became obvious long ago that individuals could not rise to the top of the MSM/DNC food chain without some degree of hostility to (or at least ignorance of) Christianity.

But I did not know that ignorance of history is a requirement also. Nor did I suspect that basic math (addition, subtraction, counting, etc.) is "frowned upon" as well. I have often suspected that network teleprompter writers believed that history began only with Vietnam, but I never knew how literally true this suspicion was.

On Good Friday, March 21, Matt Lauer's teleprompter featured a segment on the Shroud of Turin, the alleged burial shroud of Jesus.

Shroud of Turin

















There is a question as to how old the Shroud is, with some scholars believing the Shroud to be a Medieval hoax (about 600 - 700 years old), while others believe it was used for Jesus' burial (shortly after Jesus' death on the cross). Without taking sides in the dispute, I note only the questions that Matt Lauer asked one of the experts. While I don't remember the exact question, the question was prefaced with the assumption that the Shroud may have originated in "1 A.D." Lauer repeated "1 A.D." a second time moments later.

Even a moment's reflection would reveal that Jesus could not have died in "1 A.D." Jesus lived about 30 years. His death is generally recognized to have occurred between 29 A.D. and 33 A.D. Even if one did not know when Jesus died, his death could hardly have occurred in "1 A.D." He would have been only 1 year old at that time. If Lauer's teleprompter assumed that Jesus was born in "1 B.C." or "zero" (there was no year "zero"), then how would we number the years in which Jesus was alive?

In fact, the year "1 A.D." marks the year of Jesus' birth, not his death. "A.D." does not mean "after death" as we supposed when we were five years old. It means Anno Domini - in the year of our lord. The phrase is Latin [not the language spoken by people in "Latin America," but the language of ancient Rome and its subject territories].

I am not trying to make a case here, as these facts are well established and commonly recognized. I am simply trying to point out that these questions should have occurred to Lauer as he was reading "1 A.D." on his teleprompter. But I am beginning to suspect that we have only begun to plumb the depths of MSM/DNC ignorance.

UK flooding; Today Show; global warming; ventriloquist journalism; Johnstown flood of 1977

I made the mistake of watching the Today Show's coverage of the UK floods yesterday morning. After describing the devastation, looting, shortages, etc., the "reporter" blamed the whole thing on "global warming." But he didn't come right out and say that in so many words. Instead, he used "ventriloquist journalism:"

3. Ventriloquist journalism. A common tactic of the MSM/DNC is to get others to do its dirty work. Let it appear as if someone else is doing the talking so that "media bias" won't be so obvious. [Update] MSM/DNC often uses phrases like "critics say" "some say" "experts say" "sources have told CBS news" . . . .

In this case, the "reporter" concluded his piece by stating that people all over the UK were asking if this catastrophe was caused by "global warming." The reporter evaded responsibility for the ridiculous allegation by imputing the allegation to flood victims across the UK.
-----------
update

Newsbusters has the exact quote.

end update
------------------

Contrary to the current global warming hysteria, floods and heat waves have been happening since the earth began. In fact we have much to learn from past floods.

I have included a portion of a film from 1977 that should serve several purposes:

1) The film shows that floods happened even before George Bush became President;

2) It once again raises the question of when global warming is supposed to have begun;

3) For those who are still "stuck on stupid" by leaning on Hurricane Katrina as a political issue, the film shows the proper response to a flood, including immediate action by an adult mayor and an adult governor. [The PA governor was a Democrat, btw. I am not sure about the mayor.]

4) The film is historically significant, as July 20 was the thirty year anniversary of this flood.

5) The film also shows the proper response to looting. Note the mayor's answer at about 0:15 after the beginning.

6) The film also contains an interrupted reference to a "heat wave," indicating that heat waves did not begin with President Bush either.

7) Can you guess the identity of the tall "cut and run" advocate in the white shirt walking next to Governor Shapp?




As I have said before, memory is a useful tool. History is not merely some subject that is taught in school. History can actually be useful in countering the MSM/DNC.

I can't help it, I am addicted to the traffic

Almost two weeks after NBC's Today show got caught in its canoe stunt, and the traffic from NewsBusters continues to flow in to this blog. Or it flows in until someone else posts a more recent trackback. I know it is wrong, but I have become addicted to the NewsBusters traffic, so I am posting yet another trackback at that site.

I apologize for drawing you over here unnecessarily from that site. Here is some more eye candy as a reward for your trouble.

Click here to see where the Today show canoe stunt fits into the growing list of MSM lies of 2005. We are up to #46.

Katie Couric thinks Rob McCormick gets an unfair advantage by going to Scores

Check out this post at NewsBusters:

How easy is it to turn every issue into a PC propaganda tool for the purpose of setting gender against gender? The Today Show answers that question on a regular basis, and this morning was no exception.

Another blog experiment with the NBC Today show canoe lady; Michelle Kosinski

It has now been more than one week since Michelle Kosinski and the Today show got caught trying to paddle a canoe in 4 inches of water. My trackback ping to the NewsBusters' story has generated many hits. The hits for this site trail off whenever someone else posts another trackback at NewsBusters.

So I am trying to see if I can generate yet another hit barrage for myself by posting one more trackback. This experiment will give us some indication of how long a story like this can generate traffic. Actually, it is just an excuse for me to troll for traffic.

Oh, grow up! Everyone trolls for traffic. I am just being honest about it.

Here is a post involving a more detailed blog experiment resulting from the same incident.

In case you are mad that I wasted your time in following the link to this site, here is some eye candy to assuage your feelings of annoyance.

This is not Leslie Stahl. [Update] It is also not Samantha Burns.

NBC's canoe stunt vs. ABC's racially charged Toledo riot lie.

Today I have witnessed an interesting blog experiment. The whole thing was entirely unintended.

Yesterday, I entered two posts onto this Blog. Each post discussed a different MSM lie. The first post discussed the NBC Today show canoe stunt that went bad when the reporter was caught on live TV.

The second post discussed ABC's dishonest headline, in which it claimed that the rioters in Toledo were white.

Each of the posts linked to a NewsBusters post. Each of the posts also trackbacked to a NewsBusters post. The Toledo story linked also to a comment at NewsBusters.

There were 2 differences.

(1) The Toledo ABC News lie is much more harmful, as it represents the MSM/DNC's propensity to mask the identity of those who destroy and undermine our way of life. The Today show canoe lie is entertaining, but almost harmless. It would be totally harmless if it wasn't part of a larger trend of MSM/DNC dishonesty.

(2) The NewsBuster trackbacks produced wildly different results in terms of traffic. The canoe story produced a high volume of hits from the NewsBusters trackback for this blog, while the ABC racial lie produced almost no traffic. Apparently the viewers want to read about and follow the links related to the canoe story, but remain less interested in ABC's racially charged lie.

I think this demonstrates a weakness in the blogosphere that we need to correct. We need to learn what it is that really threatens our civilization. We need to realize that the MSM/DNC harms us most when it covers up those threats to civilization. Racially motivated gangs that destroy for the sake of destruction become more dangerous when they are ignored, just as Islamist terror grows worse when the MSM/DNC refuses to identify it.

The canoe story is great and helps to prove our point, but we should not get distracted laughing about it when the MSM/DNC acts more ominously in other matters.

Check out the list of 2005 MSM lies. See which ones matter the most to you.
-------------------------------
update
Michelle Malkin posts NBC's lame attempts to defend itself. A lame defense proves that the blogosphere's exposure is working. It is a shame that ABC hasn't been forced by negative publicity to defend its Toledo headline.

MSM Lie # 44 - Today Show fake canoe stunt

NBC's Today show was caught in an embarrassing video lie on Friday, just one day after I had referred to Matt Lauer as a "skilled propagandist."

NewsBusters explains the context:

In a deliciously ironic twist of fate, shortly before airing a segment aimed at embarrassing the Bush administration by suggesting that it had staged a video conversation between the president and soldiers in Iraq, the Today show was caught staging . . . a video stunt.

The Today show reporter was sitting in a canoe appearing to paddle in New Jersey floodwaters during a live broadcast:

There was one small problem. Just as the segment came on the air, two men waded in front of Kosinki . . . and the water barely covered their shoe tops! That's right, Kosinski's canoe was in no more than four to six inches of water!

Check out NewsBusters for the video.

This wasn't just a mistake or a blooper. The film crew and the reporter were caught misrepresenting what they were showing to the audience. They staged a scene that was not real. Seeing is not believing.
---------
Click here for the complete list of lies of 2005.

Laura Bush and Matt Lauer

Much of the blogosphere has reacted negatively to Laura Bush' interview with Matt Lauer this week on the Today show. Laura Bush stated that the conservative criticism of Harriet Miers was based on sexism. Typical of the response has been that of Peggy Noonan:

Sending Laura Bush out to make her first mistake as first lady, agreeing with Matt Lauer that sexism is probably part of the reason for opposition to Ms. Miers, was embarrassingly inept and only served to dim some of the power of this extraordinary resource.

I am not defending the nomination. I have made my thoughts clear here and here. Nor am I defending the use of the sexism card. But I am suggesting that the use of the sexism card was unintended by the White House. Bear with me here. The transcript of the quote appears at Big Lizards:

Lauer: Some are suggesting there's a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge [sic] Miers.

Laura Bush: That's possible. I think --

Lauer: How would you feel about that?

Laura Bush: That's possible. I think she is so accomplished that... I know, I think that people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance, and all the other things. She was the first, uh, woman managing partner of a major law firm. She was the first woman hired by a major law firm, her law firm.

emphasis added

I don't think Laura Bush intended to make that accusation. I think Matt Lauer threw in a suggestion and the first lady went with the flow.

Understand what Matt Lauer and the rest of the MSM/DNC anchors and reporters really are. They are not journalists as we understand that term. They are skilled propagandists. They are shills for one political party and one extreme ideology. They are the most skilled propagandists in existence. Their sole function is to promote their agenda in a way that does not lose their audience or reveal their bias.

Their role is more partisan than that of any trial lawyer. A lawyer (1) openly advocates his client's case and (2) is somewhat constrained by the law. But MSM/DNC interviewers can pretend to be objective. They have as much experience in extracting admissions from witnesses as any lawyer. They do it live in front of millions of viewers every day. That is all they do - advocate leftist ideology, hide their advocacy wioccasionalnal with occasional head fakes into pretend objectivity, provide assistance ("softballs") to friendly witnesses who share their advocacy goals, extract admissions from those who are not so cooperative. Only those who can accomplish these tasks under the microscope of the television camera are clever and fit enough to ascend to the position of Today show host.

By contrast, George Bush (by virtue of our ever expanding federal government) is concerned with items such as policy, fundraising, the economy, education and every other area that affects our lives. He is not single-mindedly devoted to propaganda.

Laura Bush is a mother, teacher, librarian and first lady (in no particular order).
She has never devoted her life to propaganda.

Laura Bush is no match for Matt Lauer. If Matt Lauer wants Laura Bush to say that Miers' opponents are sexist, she will say that they are sexist. If Matt Lauer wants to turn Laura Bush against her husband's base, she will be helpless to resist. Matt Lauer will hijack Laura Bush' mouth and use it as a weapon against conservatives just like the terrorists used American planes to destroy lower Manhattan.

This analysis does not excuse Laura Bush or the White House. When the White House sends a Laura Bush into the den of an MSM/DNC lion, this result is inevitable. It is the inevitable result of George Bush seeking help from the MSM/DNC in a fight against his own base.

When you get in bed with a dog, you wake up with fleas. We now have to wash off the fleas, fumigate the bed and rid ourselves of MSM/DNC tactics. I think it is time for George Bush to stop fighting his own supporters stop seeking help from the MSM/DNC and take Peggy Noonan's (and others') advice.

The MSM/DNC hates George Bush no less than they did several weeks ago. George Bush will need his supporters more now than ever. I ask George Bush to withdraw this nomination and unify his supporters once more.