Blogoland

This is some pretty weak hackwork, even for the low, low standards of Dean Barnett:

There’s something about this story that stinks, and it really bothers me. Jay Garrity is a civilian. It’s unfair that the Boston media has adopted him as their preferred club du jour with which to bludgeon the Romney campaign. If Garrity has misbehaved in his capacity of working with the Romney campaign, his misbehavior should rest at the candidate’s feet and Romney himself should have to account for the allegations. But Jay Garrity is not a public figure. His alleged misdeeds are not news.

Even the Townhall commenters can't seem to stomach the "Scandal? What scandal" shtick, and they aptly point out Barnett's lack of consistency on such matters ("judged by the company he keeps," indeed!).

Thank goodness we have Little Green Footballs and the sharp-eyed folks at Newsbusters to ask this very important question :

Will Media Report Palestinians Fleeing Gaza For Israel?

Indeed, will they? And, more importantly, how would one ever be able to find out about such a thing ?

To the Google-ometer!

Why, looky here, an AP article from June 15, a full day prior to LGF's plea.

Israel's Channel Two TV said Israel was briefly opening the Erez crossing into
Israel to enable other Fatah leaders to escape.

And, oh dear, here's another AP article, also from Friday explaining:

Before word came of Hamas' amnesty offer, 97 Fatah officials fled in a fishing
boat to Egypt. Others reached Israel via the Erez crossing and headed to the
West Bank.

Oh, and here are only about 4,765 other news stories regarding the refugees gathering at the Erez crossing in an attempt to flee Gaza for Israel. And here's a story from YNet News explaining why the Israeli government is not altogether thrilled with this development (let's take bets on whether LGF links to that story).

It's another conspiracy hidden in plain sight.

[As an aside, let's also remember that LGF and Newsbusters first became aware of the story due to an AP photo describing the attempts by Palestinians to flee to Israel. ]

Only the truly deranged (say, I don't know, Hugh Hewitt) would come away from reading accounts of the Gaza fighting and not conclude that some really bad shit happened.

But for Hugh Hewitt (armchair warrior, armchair journalist) the reporting of alleged executions and atrocities in the mainstream press is evidence that mainstream press is of course covering up those executions and atrocities, or to wit: "The reports I have read today... seem intent on downplaying the seismic nature of the Hamas coup in Gaza."

Mr. Hewitt then goes on to link to several stories, reported in the mainstream press, that tell us about that which he said is being downplayed.

Not content with this embarrassment, Hewitt sniffs, in conclusion, that the press are "eager for a storyline that makes Bush the prime mover behind the world's troubles."

Well, I don't know. Maybe. I'll just say it's curious that Hewitt fails to mention that it was the Bush administration that actively encouraged -- indeed, accelerated -- the "democratic" elections in Gaza and the West Bank in the aftermath of the glorious "Arab Spring" that eventually led to Hamas's political ascension. Such a fact obviously doesn't make our President completely responsible for everything that followed, but it sure is something to think about. Unless, of course, you are blinded by Bush Bootlick Syndrome.

Before Andy McCarthy is banished from The Corner to the Land of Wind and Spirits? If he keeps this sort of stuff up, not long, I imagine.

Victor Davis Hanson precis:

Why can't those terrorists and jihadists in Iraq fight fair? Also, I believe that the Iraqi parliament is a wonderful, functional body to be emulated the world over; morever, we'll win this war if only our leaders will explain this self-evident fact to the American people.

And then the punchline [quoted directly]:

The more brutal honesty, the less euphemism and generalities, the more Americans
will accept the challenge.

Sure.

John Kass:

Why journalists play down black-on-white crime would take more than a few columns to answer. We don't want to give comfort to white racists. It also may have something to do with our politics.

Yeah, it must've been politics when journalists totally underplayed the Central Park jogger case [black teens gone wild!], the initial reporting on the Susan Smith case [babies abducted by a black man!], and uhhh...Oh, I don't know...someone named Orenthal.

Try again, geniuses.

[via the relentlessly obtuse Prof. Reynolds, who fails to mention that he's quoted in the piece as saying: "You've seen a lot of people with impeccable credentials making the point that the press does play up white-on-black crime and play down black-on-white crime. I think it's a fair criticism. And it just empowers the crazies when the mainstream media soft-pedals this stuff."]

UPDATE: See also, St. Guillen, Imette; Moore, Jennifer. Observe how the mainstream press ran away from those black-on-white crimes.

Are Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds as stupid as they seem?

Yes:

The MSM's reluctance to call the Gaza civil war a civil war --the New York Times
this morning refers to "what is beginning to look increasingly like a civil war"-- is because the Gaza meltdown doesn't fit the tired media narrative that sees America as "breeding terrorists" in Iraq and the conflict in the Palestinian territories as the result of Israeli oppression. (Instapundit is posting "non civil war updates".) The idea that virulent Islamist fundamentalism is spawning crisis after crisis across the globe, crises which cannot be ignored or retreated from, is alien to folks whose agenda journalism is driven by BDS.

This is almost complete nonsense. Where is he getting this from? Who has ever contended such a thing, other than conspiracy minded lunkheads? If anything, the big jerks in the press were reluctant to call what was going on in Iraq a civil war. But to geniuses like Hewitt and Reynolds, it's the exact opposite. The press -- somehow -- thinks that all Muslims everywhere are peace-loving and could never engage in civil war, minus the actions of the U.S. or Israel.

See, their narrative goes something like this: The evil Big Media was eager to call the catastrophe in Iraq a 'civil war' because doing so hurts the Bush administration -- and Lord knows the press loves nothing better than undermining our war effort and being non-patriotic jerks. [How that explains the writings of InstaPundit fave and super-patriot Michael Yon, who described the Iraq conflict as a 'civil war' throughout 2005 is a matter better left unexplored.]

Which brings us to Gaza. The doofus narrative of Reynolds and Hewitt is this: The press won't call it a civil war for some reason because they think civil wars can only be the result of George W. Bush's actions. Really, that's what they believe. Oh, but wait, here's the third line in an AP story that has likely been printed in dozens of newspapers across the country today: "Both sides said Gaza had descended into civil war as the death toll from two days of fighting reached 37."

Here's a search from Google News with the terms "civil war" and "Gaza." It yields only roughly 3,000 results, many of which feature headlines like: "Hamas Appears To Be Winning Civil War" (CBS) and text that reads: "struggle escalating steadily into a civil war in Gaza" (Reuters).

It's all being hidden in plain sight.

UPDATE: Reynolds once again demonstrates just how much of a nitwit he is. See, when the press declares the Gaza strife a civil war (which Reynolds said they should do), it somehow means the press did so too fast. Really, it's almost too stupid to believe.

LATER: Zing!

Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations. Allahpundit has been performing yeomen's work with his tireless clicking of the "Refresh" button on Google News. It did not go unnoticed. Says newshound Hugh Hewitt: "As per usual, Hot Air is running rings around the MSM coverage of the latest plot."

And, of course, if by "running rings around" the dread MSM, Hugh meant "linking exclusively to MSM reportage," well, you'd be absolutely right. Take that, phone picker-uppers and shoe-leather pounders! The blogosphere will aggregate your ass out of existence!

Regrettably, it is time again to re-run this destined-to-be-classic line: "No one is going to get a blogging Pulitzer for being the fastest to post what they just saw and heard on the TV."