Most trusted media? Not newspapers.

Besides skiing, wine gulping and dining 24/7, there are some presentations at Davos. I know, it is hard to believe.

Two thirds of people in the Western world don’t trust newspaper articles.

Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, began a session saying that trust is an issue for the press as well as government and big business. Edelman found that trust in business magazines and analysts fell from 57% to 44% and from 56% to 47% respectively. Trust in TV news is down from 49% to 36% and in newspaper coverage from 47% to 34%.

The least trusted businesses: Banking and the auto business. In general the U.S., India, U.K., Poland and China, there is much more trust in business than in government. The French, Germans and most of Europe believe  in Big Brother over the private sector. The sad part, the U.S. is moving toward the French.


The real Nancy Pelosi — multi-millionaire, resort, dining and winery baroness who profits from non-union and illegal labor. Now she pushes more taxes on U.S. oil companies — not OPEC oil producers.

By Mick Gregory

UPDATE: Sept. 21, 2008; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry and more than 50 other members of Congress, Bloomberg reports.

Pelosi, in her most recent financial disclosure form, reported that her husband owned between $250,000 and $500,000 of stock in AIG, which ceded majority control to the U.S. government this week in exchange for $85 billion of loans.

Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, disclosed that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had more than $2 million of AIG stock at the end of 2007, when shares were worth $58.30. AIG has fallen 85 percent this week to close yesterday at $2.69. The lawmakers’ aides didn’t respond to calls seeking comment.

Did you know that the Obama family had their own private chef for years? Journalists didn’t bother to report that at any time during the past two years. Do you wonder why?

Sam Kass, who cooked for the Obamas in Chicago will now move onto the government payroll as a White House chef. (Ever wary of annoying the feminist base, the Obamas are not firing the very first woman to hold the Chief Chef job, chosen by Laura Bush. They’re just pushing her out of the way.)

Who knew? I believed all that stuff about how Michelle was an overburdened modern working mother, rushing from school dropoff to her high-paying, demanding work at the hospital, to dress fittings, to whatever it was she needed to do to support her husband’s political aspirations, back home to take care of her daughters. Call me naive, but that model usually includes making dinner. And squeezing in a weekly grocery shopping trip. Especially for those fresh, whole foods that don’t keep so long. Now I have to wonder who did the laundry, and the vaccuuming. Sure, granny helped—but I doubt she was the maid. Who was?

In fact, I don’t actually care who did the cooking (or cleaning) in the Obama household. And Chef Sam is fine with me. The orchestrated deception—the pretense that this family did it all themselves, living a low-key life just like most upper middle class Americans, working hard and taking care of the necessary, sometimes tedious requirements of home life as well as they seemed to have done—is a little more troubling. To be sure, a University of Chicago-educated private chef seems a little more indulgent than a nanny who broils the chicken or chops up the broccoli. But that’s their call.  

Didn’t the women at Slate, among others, complain that there was something offensive about Sarah Palin’s apparent ability to raise 5 children, run the state of Alaska, run marathons, and cook those mooseburgers—because it set the bar too high for ordinary women? But they were willing to believe that Michelle could do it all, and keep it all organic and healthy at that—because she has a law degree from Harvard?

This is one of the great gifts that comes with being a Democrat who is so beloved of the media. Instead of the inevitable carping and cries of hypocrisy and elitism, the New York Times food writer just gushes at what a master stroke this appointment is—bringing sustainable food to the White House and inevitable gardens to the grounds.

When you run for president as a community organizer, and a writer, or even a professor of constitutional law, perhaps it’s politic to hide a few salient details about your actual lifestyle that might mess up the “savior of the downtrodden” narrative. It’s important to keep up the fiction that only spoiled, indifferent, wealthy Republicans have personal servants. — Lisa Schiffren

Did you know? CNN’s Democrat cheerleader Anderson Cooper is the son of billionaire heiress Gloria Vanderbilt.

This new tax on oil is not unlike Chavez taking over control of private industries. Even liberal Californians voted down an identical energy tax just last November. So what does Pelosi do? She pushes through a more expensive energy tax in the first 100 hours without debate. This is similar to Hugo Chavez’s progressive politics. You think? What’s the difference?
The millions of dollars that Democrat supporters spent to pass Proposition 87 to promote an increase in the extraction tax on crude pumped from California oil wells wasn’t enough to win over the state’s voters last November.

The hotly contested ballot measure, which proposed to impose a new tax on oil production to fund a range of alternative energy programs, was backed by 45% of the voters, while 55% opposed it, according official returns.

Opponents of the initiative campaigned heavily, arguing the tax would be borne by consumers, who would end up paying even more at the pump.

The proposed Clean Alternative Energy Act sought to raise $4 billion over 10 years through an oil-extraction tax. The funds would be used to sponsor research and projects in alternative energy, including ethanol, solar and wind power.
The initiative, which sought to cut the use of petroleum by 25% over the next decade, drew a massive response from the oil industry and pulled in endorsements from political heavyweights such as former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.

Both sides spent millions of dollars on their campaigns.
Hollywood producer Stephen Bing provided major funding in favor of the measure by pledging about $49 million to the campaign. Other backers include Google Inc. (GOOG

Energy companies calculated the impact of the potential new tax would range from 1.5% to 6%, depending on the price of oil. During its third-quarter earnings conference call, Chevron Chief Financial Officer Steve Crowe said the company could take a $200 million pretax hit on its annual earnings from the proposition.

Facelift? Nancy Pelosi‘s socialist political views are exactly what have kept her elected in San Francisco, along with the flow of union campaign money. The staunch “union supporter” Pelosi has even received the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farm Workers Union. But her $25 million Napa vineyards and winery, she and her husband own are non-union shops. The extra profit she earns is more than she gets from labor unions. But I don’t think she wants the rank and file to know this. Do you?

The hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Pelosi has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees unions than any other member of Congress in recent election cycles.

The multi-millionaire investors own a large stake in an exclusive resort hotel in Wine Country, the Napa Valley Auberge Du Soleil Resort. It has more than 250 employees. But none of them are in a union, according to Peter Schweizer, author of “Do As I Say, (Not As I Do) – The Hypocrisy of Democrats” and a regular contributor to the New York Times.

Pelosi is also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees. The chain is – you might have guessed — a non-union shop. It is a very high-end restaurant group with locations in Carmel, Sonoma and Danville to name just the locations I dined at. Hardwood-fired ovens, exhibition kitchens, Napa wines, a very nice experience. I did notice some Hispanic kitchen help and busboys. I’m wondering if they are illegal alliens? No, the Speaker of the House wouldn’t hire illegals, would she?

I’m sure The Chronicle’s Herb Caen gave Piatti a big plug every so often.
The 67-68 (?) year-old Pelosi has spent more money on facelifts, cosmetic enhancements, and Armani suits than every one of her union supporters combined, don’t you think?

I heard Chris Mathews of “Hardball” say “what a knockout Pelosi is, “I can’t wait to see her sitting behind President Bush at the next State of the Union speech.”
Mathews actually worked at the The Chronicle and Examiner in San Francisco before his show “Hard Ball” on MSNBC, and before that he was a ‘gofer’ and occasional writer for the Democrat Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill.

I believe that Mathews wasn’t as kind to Kathryn Harris who is young enough to be Pelosi’s daughter and quite attractive without expensive plastic surgery. Continue reading

The New York Times Tries to Save Face After Supporting and Covering Up for the Hillary Clinton Machine. Vicki Iseman Is Named John McCain’s Lover by the Scandal Sheet

UPDATE: The New York Times may not exist as we know it this year or next. The crash is happening faster than any of the experts had predicted.

This article has been mentioned on Silicon Alley Insider.

End Times
Virtually all the predictions about the death of old media have assumed a comfortingly long time frame for the end of print—the moment when, amid a panoply of flashing lights, press conferences, and elegiac reminiscences, the newspaper presses stop rolling and news goes entirely digital. Most of these scenarios assume a gradual crossing-over, almost like the migration of dunes, as behaviors change, paradigms shift, and the digital future heaves fully into view. The thinking goes that the existing brands—The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal—will be the ones making that transition, challenged but still dominant as sources of original reporting.

But what if the old media dies much more quickly? What if a hurricane comes along and obliterates the dunes entirely? Specifically, what if TheNew York Times goes out of business—like, this May?

It’s certainly plausible. Earnings reports released by the New York Times Company in October indicate that drastic measures will have to be taken over the next five months or the paper will default on some $400million in debt. With more than $1billion in debt already on the books, only $46million in cash reserves as of October, and no clear way to tap into the capital markets (the company’s debt was recently reduced to junk status), the paper’s future doesn’t look good.

“As part of our analysis of our uses of cash, we are evaluating future financing arrangements,” the Times Company announced blandly in October, referring to the crunch it will face in May. “Based on the conversations we have had with lenders, we expect that we will be able to manage our debt and credit obligations as they mature.” This prompted Henry Blodget, whose Web site, Silicon Alley Insider, has offered the smartest ongoing analysis of the company’s travails, to write: “‘We expect that we will be able to manage’? Translation: There’s a possibility that we won’t be able to manage.”

The paper’s credit crisis comes against a backdrop of ongoing and accelerating drops in circulation, massive cutbacks in advertising revenue, and the worst economic climate in almost 80 years. As of December, its stock had fallen so far that the entire company could theoretically be had for about $1 billion. The former Times executive editor Abe Rosenthal often said he couldn’t imagine a world without The Times. Perhaps we should start.

Granted, the odds that The Times will cease to exist entirely come May are relatively slim. Many steps could be taken to prolong its existence. The Times Company has already slashed its dividend, a major source of income for the paper’s owners, the Sulzberger family, but one that starved the company at precisely the moment it needed significant investments in new media. The company could sell its share of the brilliant Renzo Piano–designed headquarters—which cost the company about $600million to build and was completed in 2007, years after the digital threat to The Times’ core business had become clear. (It’s already borrowing money against the building’s value.) It could sell The Boston Globe—or shutter it entirely, given what the company itself has acknowledged is a challenging time for the sale of media properties. It could sell its share in the Boston Red Sox, close or sell various smaller properties, or off-load, the resolutely unglamorous Web purchase that has been virtually the only source of earnings growth in the Times Company’s portfolio. With these steps, or after them, would come mass staffing cuts, no matter that the executive editor, Bill Keller, promised otherwise.

It’s possible that a David Geffen, Michael Bloomberg, or Carlos Slim would purchase The Times as a trophy property and spare the company some of this pain. Even Rupert Murdoch, after overpaying wildly for The Wall Street Journal, seems to be tempted by the prospect of adding The Times to his portfolio. But the experiences of Sam Zell, who must be ruing the day he waded into the waking nightmare that is the now-bankrupt Tribune Company, would surely temper the enthusiasm of all but the most arrogant of plutocrats. (And as global economies tumble around them, the plutocrats aren’t as plutocratic as they used to be.) Alternatively, Google or Microsoft or even CBS could purchase The Times on the cheap, strip it for parts, and turn it into a content mill to goose its own page views.

Regardless of what happens over the next few months, The Times is destined for significant and traumatic change. At some point soon—sooner than most of us think—the print edition, and with it The Times as we know it, will no longer exist. And it will likely have plenty of company. In December, the Fitch Ratings service, which monitors the health of media companies, predicted a widespread newspaper die-off: “Fitch believes more newspapers and news­paper groups will default, be shut down and be liquidated in 2009 and several cities could go without a daily print newspaper by 2010.” — Michael Hirschorn.



In a effort to retain their crown as the liberal beacon of Western Civilization, the old gray lady, The New York Times, found that not only its circulation, advertising and stock price are falling, now their editorial authority is irrelevant. Obama is crushing the Hillary Clinton machine and the massive coverup of voter fraud in New York and New Hampshire can’t be kept behind closed doors.   Not only are some leaders in the Democrat party pointing out the voter fraud, the liberal mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg called it exactly that. What does The Times do?

Instead they print  a smear job on the front page, attacking the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain.

White House Spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters that he and others working in the Bush administration felt the influential newspaper had a history of going after Republican presidential candidates.

“I think a lot of people here in this building with experience in a couple campaigns have grown accustomed to the fact that during the course of a campaign, about — seemingly on maybe a monthly basis leading up to the convention, maybe a weekly basis after that, The New York Times does try to drop a bombshell on the Republican nominee,” Stanzel told reporters.

Stanzel also said the newspaper sometimes makes “incredible leaps to try to drop those bombshells on the Republican nominees.”

It’s too late. The bombshell didn’t work this time. The truth is spreading via blogs. And it is too late for The Times to jump on the Obama band wagon, just yet. The editors are thinking ahead. They know that they will have to switch their support to the Democrat front runner in the next few weeks, graciously dropping Hillary. They have a first look at the poll results for Clinton and she is losing in Texas and Mississippi, big time it appears.  

So, in a last ditch effort, the NYT’s editors drop a bomb on McCain. They even endorsed the moderate war hero a few weeks ago. Take a look at the affair they are reporting that McCain had with Vicki Iseman. Who are the sources? What does Ms. Iseman have to say?
Vicki Iseman
Why didn’t they do that kind of reporting on Bill Clinton? First, before he was elected, but more importantly, when he was being serviced by a young intern in the oval office?
The Internet has toppled the elite liberal media in 2008. I predict the NYT stock price to fall below $15 in the coming weeks.

The Rod Blagojevich tapes started on Oct. 22, more than a year after the investigations started. Yet, no mention from the media until weeks after the election

Breaking news. 

Governor Rod Blagojevich gave a press confernence Dec. 19, at 2 p.m. announcing his side of the story for the first time.

“I’m hear to tell you right off the bat that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing and that I intend to stay on the job and that I will fight this thing every step of the way,” said Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) proclaimed his innocence in the opening volley of a statement delivered at the John R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago this afternoon.

“I will fight, I will fight, I will fight, until I take my last breath,” he continued.  “I have done nothing wrong.”

I believe him. I don’t think he did anything wrong. What about Obama’s chief of staff? 

President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had a deeper involvement in pressing for a U.S. Senate seat appointment than previously reported, the Sun-Times has learned. Emanuel had direct discussions about the seat with Gov. Blagojevich, who is is accused of trying to auction it to the highest bidder. — Reported by the Chicago Sun-Times (not the Tribune).  

We know now that hundreds of hours of conversations involving Rod Blagojevich and the top levels of the Democrat Party, were secretly recorded by the FBI since Oct. 22, and Tribune jounalists didn’t mention it — not until after the election of course. Wouldn’t the citizens of America have been better served if they knew about the investigation before the election? 

But it gets more interesting. 

It appears there was a marathon conference call on Nov. 10, with Blago getting all kinds action from the Obama and Chicago Democrat machine. This must have been big. Really big. Because someone tipped off the Tribune to announce to the world about the wire tap and the Obama lock down began. But this was before Blagojevich and Obama’s team exchanged favors, so no crime was committed. The Tribune got a call, from who? Could it be Tony Rezco (the former Tribune editor) to expose the wire tap before Obama’s team made the payoff? Who gave the Tribune the call to spill the beans? 

A WSJ report on Dec. 14 states that the Tribune knew about the wire in October and was working with Pat Fitzgerald’s office on withholding the story.

All is well in Crook County, Ill. 

Thousands of Avis customers are being billed for “unpaid” Ill tollroad fees that were supposed to be charged to the EZ toll devices. Millions of dollars are going to the corrupt Democrat Chicago machine. That’s chump change. This is Chicago! 

Tell us your Chicago stories. 

The greatest economic challenge of our lifetimes is not now, it was 25 years ago under Jimmy Carter — Get ready for the Obama Drama Ding Dongs

In his first news conference since Election Day, President-elect Barack Obama said the United States is ”facing the greatest economic challenge of our lifetimes.”

“Obama Drama Ding Dong.” (Let’s see if that phrase catches on). For the next four years we are going to read and hear about crisis after challenge for Obama Drama Ding Dongs. (Inspired by the “Animal House” nightclub scene.)

And the “free press” in America fails to report that Jimmy Carter’s presidency was on an economic disaster with mortgage interest rates of 19 to 21 percent, gas lines, unemployment of over 8.5 percent and the highest tax rates ever seen in the United States since LBJ’s Great Society.

Today’s media is a propaganda machine for the Democratic party. This week the Washington Post in an editorial admitted they had an overwhelming bias to get Obma elected. Woopsie. But the LA Times was even worse. The editors there kept a tape of a toast to a Jew hater named Khalid.

We will see the tape eventually. But will it have been edited? What do you think?

There is no comparative, investigative reporting. Watch America transform into an Eastern European socialist nation with no future and the middle class transformed into a lower-class, mediocre society ruled by the rich, elite class.

The Annenberg Challenge — What happened to $100 million in grants to improve Chicago schools?

The September surprise. Obama is a pawn of far left socialists and Chicago Democrat machine

Barack Obama and the ’70s communist Bill Ayers have worked closely together on ‘education reform’ since 1995. Reform meaning, funds for leftwing friends of Ayers were funded while real reforms such as algebra tutoring for innercity students went unfunded. Obama has dodged and minimized this association in interviews and in public statements and on his Website.

What is Obama hiding?

This is some of it:

When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force. Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers. During Obama’s time as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’s own education projects received substantial funding. Indeed, during its first year, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge struggled with significant concerns about possible conflicts of interest. With a writ to aid Chicago’s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago’s education wars, and as Annenberg board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues. –Stanley Kurtz

It’s becoming known as the Annenberg Challenge cover-up and it’s become big news since the McCain campaign highlighted it in a press release late Wednesday.

In the past few days, Stanley Kurtz of the National Review has been trying to get access to the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education reform group co-founded by Bill Ayers in 1995 and chaired by Barack Obama from 1995 to 1999. After originally giving Mr. Kurtz permission, the library then told him that he could not proceed because they did not have proper authorization from the donor of the archives. They would not identify the donor, but the library assured Mr. Kurtz that they hoped to conclude an agreement and make the documents available soon. And why that cover-up? Because it points to the root corruption that has ruined thousands of student’s lives in one of the worst school districts in the United States.

Watch for the release of the papers. Check out WGN radio for upcoming interviews with Mr. Kurtz.

In regard to payoffs and rigged Chicago elections, Obama does have more experience than Sarah Palin.

The media sent 15,000 reporters to Denver, half that to St. Paul and incredibly just a dozen to look into the Annenberg coverup. Is that a free press?

Obama grew up in privilege, his step father was an energy top manager in Jakarta, the boomtown city of Islamic rule in oil rich Indonesia. Later, Obama went to school in Hawaii. After two years at Occidental college in California, he was accepted at Columbia University and later Harvard Law School. Free ride?