September 24, 2008
Circle the Wagons!
Too bad that lunatic Olberman is muzzled. I'd love to hear some ranting from him. In the meantime, this is pretty funny: JayTea at Wizbang fisks a Media Matters report called "The Jawa Report Shoots and Misses" ("Just another day at the office for the can't-shoot-straight gang on the far side of the blogosphere."). bwahahaha. JayTea makes oh, a few good points, take a look.
A few more good points can be found at The Examiner. Its a complete analysis, and this is from the conclusion:
If like me, you suspect that this video was an Axelrod production, it leaves you with two reasonable theories. First, the ad was possibly produced by Axelrod before The New York Times retracted the claim carried in the video. Then Axelrod shelved it. At that point, Winner probably had the ad from Axelrod and was either told to sit on it and he disobeyed or told to release it as a viral video.That's a good question, especially when there is no disputing the claim that the lovely Sarah was not a member of AIP. Ethan admitted he knew the smear was already de-bunked in the comments at the Youtube vid he posted spreading the smear. And we could see that if he didn't yank the vid and close his account within minutes of Jawa's post.Take note of the Obama spokespeson's denial. He said we had nothing to do with this "YouTube video". Let's parse that statement. By characterzing the video as a "YouTube video" he can disassociate the general act of making the video from the act of uploading it to YouTube. In fact, this does not expliciately deny that Axelrod's company or another contractor produced the video for the Obama campaign. Too fine a point? Does what the meaning of "is" is ring any bells? (emphasis added-j)
Or, perhaps, as Ethan Winner claims, he was completely responsible from top to bottom for the ad. Of course, a sleazy ad like this would harm any professional PR firm's reputation. What would his motivation be to damage his own reputation?
By Jane at September 24, 2008 09:55 AM | | l digg this
