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.