So many bad blogs, so little time ...

While I haven't updated this site much recently, there is work underway.
I've collected information from a number of blogs for the purpose of writing up a blog review for a number of blogs who are bad enough to qualify at BBB.

A Web site I ran across yesterday has drawn my attention, however, so some other projects will stay on the back burner while I focus on the "Project for an Old American Century."

POAC, as it is known, seems to be bad through-and-through based on my survey so far, but the part of the site that most caught my attention was its "Counterspin" page, where POAC claims to provide "[t]he facts behind right wing talking points."

Well, they don't do a very good job.

There are 31 entries, and I'll be going through each one of them with a separate BBB post.
This will be ugly. Once 16 of the claims have been debunked, I'll add POAC to the bloody bad blogs (Bad Blogs' Blood) blogroll.

Here we go with the first one.

The talking point
The mainstream media shows a biased view of the activity in Iraq by focusing on the negative.

The facts
Iraq: The Hidden Story shows the footage used by TV news broadcasts, and compares it with the devastatingly powerful uncensored footage of the aftermath of the carnage that is becoming a part of the fabric of life in Iraq.
(POAC)

So ... if we focus even more on the negative it will show that the MSM does not focus on the negative?

This response from POAC confounds common sense and logic.

It's like saying that sports news doesn't focus on home runs by showing every home run instead of just half of the home runs on a given day of baseball. The film does absolutely nothing to refute the talking point. All it does is create a diversion by getting the reader to think "Well, they could have used even more negative footage, so the amount they used doesn't really focus on the negative!"

Of course the MSM focus on the negative. That's what the consumer-driven society wants to see and hear, oddly enough, and that's what they get more often than not.

"If it bleeds, it leads."

Reasoning of the type displayed in this first entry should embarrass anyone who uses it in ostensibly serious public discourse.

Will it get worse before it gets better? Stay tuned ...