ONE. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully.
TWO. Marry a man/woman you love to talk to. As you get older, their conversational skills will be as important as any other.
THREE. Don't believe all you hear, spend all you have or sleep all you want.
FOUR.. When you say, 'I love you,' mean it.
FIVE. When you say, 'I'm sorry,' look the person in the eye.
SIX. Be engaged at least six months before you get married.
SEVEN. Believe in love at first sight.
EIGHT. Never laugh at anyone's dreams. People who don't have dreams don't have much.
NINE. Love deeply and passionately. You might get hurt but it's the only way to live life completely..
TEN.. In disagreements, fight fairly. No name calling.
ELEVEN. Don't judge people by their relatives.
TWELVE. Talk slowly but think quickly.
THIRTEEN! ... When someone asks you a question you don't want to answer, smile and ask, 'Why do you want to know?'
FOURTEEN. Remember that great love and great achievements involve great risk.
FIFTEEN. Say 'bless you' when you hear someone sneeze.
SIXTEEN. When you lose, don't lose the lesson..
SEVENTEEN. Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; and Responsibility for all your actions.
EIGHTEEN. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.
NINETEEN. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.
TWENTY. Smile when picking up the phone. The caller will hear it in your voice
TWENTY- ONE.. Spend some time alone.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
RIGHT RAGE How far will go before it's exposed!
Media Matters: The right-wing rage machine unloads a frenzy of race-baiting
The summer months are typically when the quality of political discourse in this country reaches its yearly nadir. Washington tends to slow down from June to August, and people who hold moderate interest in the political process instead turn to barbecues and baseball games. As a consequence, the people who remain engaged are those who are more, let's say, passionate in their beliefs, and aren't going to let a little thing like "other things to do" get in the way of their political activism. Summer is also tough for political journalists who still have deadlines to meet, but much less material with which to work. As a consequence, we see stories that would ordinarily merit passing or no mention earn disproportionate coverage. Minor gaffes become "scandals," non-issues become "controversial," and the end result is that pretty much everyone gets angrier.
It's in this environment that the right-wing media thrive, practiced as they are in ginning up stories based on manufactured outrage and utter nonsense. And lately, they've all had one topic on their minds: race. Specifically the racism of black political figures, which they claim is nothing short of institutional policy in the Obama administration, and the racism of white tea partiers, which they claim doesn't exist.
And where else can one begin except with the ever-evolving, increasingly ridiculous New Black Panther Party "scandal," which revolves around the allegation -- and it's hard to believe that right-wingers actually profess to believe this -- that the Obama Justice Department dropped voter intimidation charges against members of this fringe hate group due to the administration's official policy of not pursuing cases in which the defendant is black and the victim is white. Is there evidence for any of this? No. Does the partisan GOP hack/former DOJ attorney making this allegation have any facts to support it? Not so much. But that's the story they're sticking to, and it has sparked a frenzy of race-baiting more explicit than any we've seen thus far during the Obama administration.
Fox News has, of course, been leading the charge, embarking on what Jonathan Chait calls "the most widespread and mainstream right-wing effort to exploit racial fears against Obama." Glenn Beck nonsensically claimed that the New Black Panthers "have ties to the White House" and flat-out accused the administration of tacitly endorsing the "race war" he sees coming down the pike. Perpetually outraged Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, the "straight news" driving force behind the bogus story, has been corrected on the facts more times than should be necessary, but continues to hype the story with wide-eyed indignation.
In some ways, that's to be expected from Fox News. The danger is that, with not much else going on and the right-wing rage machine operating at high speed, the bogus story starts bleeding into the mainstream press. Kelly herself boasted that Fox News "dragged the media kicking and screaming" to the New Black Panther story, and already there have been overly credulous treatments of the non-scandal on CNN and in the pages of The Washington Post.
The obverse to the right-wing media's fact-free claims of racism at the Justice Department are their assurances, contrary to the facts, that there exists no racism in the tea party movement. After the NAACP signaled its intention to pass a resolution condemning the "racist elements" within the tea party, conservatives went ballistic, claiming that the many, many, many, many, many examples of tea party racism and bigotry simply don't exist. And nothing will convince them otherwise -- not the many photographs of racist placards at tea party rallies (if Sean Hannity couldn't find them, they must not exist!), nor the word of civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis (he's a liar!).
Bigoted, racial attacks from conservatives against Obama aren't anything new. Hell, not even a week after he announced his intention to run for the presidency, they were excitedly spreading false rumors that he spent his childhood in a madrassa. But this past month has been something different. Gone are the code words, the winks and nods, and the dog whistles -- the conservative media are openly and aggressively trying to turn Obama's race into something threatening. You can chalk it up to the heat, the summer doldrums, or whatever. The fact is that they're going down roads from which there is no coming back, and it's only going to get worse as the summer rolls on.
Erick Erickson conjures Atwater's exorcised demons
In January 1991, Lee Atwater, the storied political strategist whose bare-knuckled tactics helped propel George H.W. Bush to the White House in 1988, issued a public apology to Bush's opponent, Michael Dukakis. Suffering from terminal brain cancer, Atwater disavowed the statements and tactics he employed against Dukakis, in particular his stated intentions to "strip the bark off the little bastard" and "make Willie Horton his running mate." According to Atwater: "I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not."
The shameful history of Willie Horton's role in the 1988 presidential campaign need not be recounted here -- what matters is that the man who gave Willie Horton that starring role came to realize afterward that he had crossed the line on racial fearmongering, and he sincerely regretted doing so.
CNN's Erick Erickson, however, wants to cross that line, and he wants to take the Republican Party with him.
"King Samir Shabazz Should Be 2010's Willie Horton," wrote Erickson on RedState.com, referring to one of the New Black Panther Party members who was under investigation for voter intimidation. The New Black Panther story is a farce, and, as noted above, it is merely a vehicle for conservatives to race-bait against President Obama.
But the naked political and racial callousness of Erickson's remarks put them in a class all their own. Erickson's desire to turn Shabazz into the next Willie Horton is shocking not just because he's advocating a return to the Southern Strategy-style politicking for which Republican leaders from Atwater to Ken Mehlman to Michael Steele have expressed regret. He also openly acknowledges the potential for racial divisiveness and dismisses it -- along with the support of black voters -- as irrelevant: "The Democrats will scream racism. Let them. Republicans are not going to pick up significant black support anyway."
It's an extremely warped and cynical view of the political landscape, and it really makes you wonder if CNN realizes what it's paying for.
Boss Limbaugh, The Boss, and the "death tax"
One does not have to be a Yankee fan (like me) to be affected by the passing of George Steinbrenner. In many ways, The Boss embodied everything that is great and terrible about baseball. Like a player who takes steroids to give himself a competitive edge, Steinbrenner's own relentless drive for victory frequently led him to act less than admirably. At the same time, it's hard to argue with results -- the seven championships and 11 pennants the Yankees won in the Steinbrenner era are almost as many as the rival Boston Red Sox have won in their entire existence.
Rush Limbaugh, however, is a football fan, so Steinbrenner's passing would obviously affect him differently, and he needed to find something to say about Steinbrenner that wasn't about baseball. He opted for his two trusty stand-bys -- offensive racial commentary and conservative economic dogma. "George Steinbrenner has passed away at age 80. That cracker made a lot of African-American millionaires," Rush observed in a statement that, to use a subject-appropriate cliché, came out of right field.
Obviously, most people have been focusing on the racial component of Limbaugh's remarks (Al Sharpton denounced them as "repugnant and offensive") but there was another remark in Limbaugh's ugly eulogy that deserves some attention: his statement that Steinbrenner "knew when to die," because the estate tax will be reinstated next year and Steinbrenner's considerable estate will avoid taxation as a consequence of his passing before 2011. That sentiment was echoed across the conservative media and even in the halls of Congress, where Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), a Hall of Fame pitcher himself, said of Steinbrenner: "Because he was smart enough to die in 2010, there is zero tax liability on the estate tax."
In short, conservatives were very pleased that the ultra-rich Steinbrenner and his ultra-rich relatives were able to escape the tyranny of the so-called "death tax." This is amusing, because up to this point, these same conservatives were assuring us that the evil of the estate tax was that it wreaks havoc on family farms and small businesses. Of course, that isn't true -- just about every small business and family farm in the country escapes estate taxes.
Nevertheless, conservatives told us that in repealing the estate tax, we'd be acting in the interests of the little guy.The timing of George Steinbrenner's death, and the ensuing right-wing celebration of his already wealthy heirs' good fortune, should make clear whose interests they really have at heart.
Rest in peace, Big Stein.
The summer months are typically when the quality of political discourse in this country reaches its yearly nadir. Washington tends to slow down from June to August, and people who hold moderate interest in the political process instead turn to barbecues and baseball games. As a consequence, the people who remain engaged are those who are more, let's say, passionate in their beliefs, and aren't going to let a little thing like "other things to do" get in the way of their political activism. Summer is also tough for political journalists who still have deadlines to meet, but much less material with which to work. As a consequence, we see stories that would ordinarily merit passing or no mention earn disproportionate coverage. Minor gaffes become "scandals," non-issues become "controversial," and the end result is that pretty much everyone gets angrier.
It's in this environment that the right-wing media thrive, practiced as they are in ginning up stories based on manufactured outrage and utter nonsense. And lately, they've all had one topic on their minds: race. Specifically the racism of black political figures, which they claim is nothing short of institutional policy in the Obama administration, and the racism of white tea partiers, which they claim doesn't exist.
And where else can one begin except with the ever-evolving, increasingly ridiculous New Black Panther Party "scandal," which revolves around the allegation -- and it's hard to believe that right-wingers actually profess to believe this -- that the Obama Justice Department dropped voter intimidation charges against members of this fringe hate group due to the administration's official policy of not pursuing cases in which the defendant is black and the victim is white. Is there evidence for any of this? No. Does the partisan GOP hack/former DOJ attorney making this allegation have any facts to support it? Not so much. But that's the story they're sticking to, and it has sparked a frenzy of race-baiting more explicit than any we've seen thus far during the Obama administration.
Fox News has, of course, been leading the charge, embarking on what Jonathan Chait calls "the most widespread and mainstream right-wing effort to exploit racial fears against Obama." Glenn Beck nonsensically claimed that the New Black Panthers "have ties to the White House" and flat-out accused the administration of tacitly endorsing the "race war" he sees coming down the pike. Perpetually outraged Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, the "straight news" driving force behind the bogus story, has been corrected on the facts more times than should be necessary, but continues to hype the story with wide-eyed indignation.
In some ways, that's to be expected from Fox News. The danger is that, with not much else going on and the right-wing rage machine operating at high speed, the bogus story starts bleeding into the mainstream press. Kelly herself boasted that Fox News "dragged the media kicking and screaming" to the New Black Panther story, and already there have been overly credulous treatments of the non-scandal on CNN and in the pages of The Washington Post.
The obverse to the right-wing media's fact-free claims of racism at the Justice Department are their assurances, contrary to the facts, that there exists no racism in the tea party movement. After the NAACP signaled its intention to pass a resolution condemning the "racist elements" within the tea party, conservatives went ballistic, claiming that the many, many, many, many, many examples of tea party racism and bigotry simply don't exist. And nothing will convince them otherwise -- not the many photographs of racist placards at tea party rallies (if Sean Hannity couldn't find them, they must not exist!), nor the word of civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis (he's a liar!).
Bigoted, racial attacks from conservatives against Obama aren't anything new. Hell, not even a week after he announced his intention to run for the presidency, they were excitedly spreading false rumors that he spent his childhood in a madrassa. But this past month has been something different. Gone are the code words, the winks and nods, and the dog whistles -- the conservative media are openly and aggressively trying to turn Obama's race into something threatening. You can chalk it up to the heat, the summer doldrums, or whatever. The fact is that they're going down roads from which there is no coming back, and it's only going to get worse as the summer rolls on.
Erick Erickson conjures Atwater's exorcised demons
In January 1991, Lee Atwater, the storied political strategist whose bare-knuckled tactics helped propel George H.W. Bush to the White House in 1988, issued a public apology to Bush's opponent, Michael Dukakis. Suffering from terminal brain cancer, Atwater disavowed the statements and tactics he employed against Dukakis, in particular his stated intentions to "strip the bark off the little bastard" and "make Willie Horton his running mate." According to Atwater: "I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not."
The shameful history of Willie Horton's role in the 1988 presidential campaign need not be recounted here -- what matters is that the man who gave Willie Horton that starring role came to realize afterward that he had crossed the line on racial fearmongering, and he sincerely regretted doing so.
CNN's Erick Erickson, however, wants to cross that line, and he wants to take the Republican Party with him.
"King Samir Shabazz Should Be 2010's Willie Horton," wrote Erickson on RedState.com, referring to one of the New Black Panther Party members who was under investigation for voter intimidation. The New Black Panther story is a farce, and, as noted above, it is merely a vehicle for conservatives to race-bait against President Obama.
But the naked political and racial callousness of Erickson's remarks put them in a class all their own. Erickson's desire to turn Shabazz into the next Willie Horton is shocking not just because he's advocating a return to the Southern Strategy-style politicking for which Republican leaders from Atwater to Ken Mehlman to Michael Steele have expressed regret. He also openly acknowledges the potential for racial divisiveness and dismisses it -- along with the support of black voters -- as irrelevant: "The Democrats will scream racism. Let them. Republicans are not going to pick up significant black support anyway."
It's an extremely warped and cynical view of the political landscape, and it really makes you wonder if CNN realizes what it's paying for.
Boss Limbaugh, The Boss, and the "death tax"
One does not have to be a Yankee fan (like me) to be affected by the passing of George Steinbrenner. In many ways, The Boss embodied everything that is great and terrible about baseball. Like a player who takes steroids to give himself a competitive edge, Steinbrenner's own relentless drive for victory frequently led him to act less than admirably. At the same time, it's hard to argue with results -- the seven championships and 11 pennants the Yankees won in the Steinbrenner era are almost as many as the rival Boston Red Sox have won in their entire existence.
Rush Limbaugh, however, is a football fan, so Steinbrenner's passing would obviously affect him differently, and he needed to find something to say about Steinbrenner that wasn't about baseball. He opted for his two trusty stand-bys -- offensive racial commentary and conservative economic dogma. "George Steinbrenner has passed away at age 80. That cracker made a lot of African-American millionaires," Rush observed in a statement that, to use a subject-appropriate cliché, came out of right field.
Obviously, most people have been focusing on the racial component of Limbaugh's remarks (Al Sharpton denounced them as "repugnant and offensive") but there was another remark in Limbaugh's ugly eulogy that deserves some attention: his statement that Steinbrenner "knew when to die," because the estate tax will be reinstated next year and Steinbrenner's considerable estate will avoid taxation as a consequence of his passing before 2011. That sentiment was echoed across the conservative media and even in the halls of Congress, where Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), a Hall of Fame pitcher himself, said of Steinbrenner: "Because he was smart enough to die in 2010, there is zero tax liability on the estate tax."
In short, conservatives were very pleased that the ultra-rich Steinbrenner and his ultra-rich relatives were able to escape the tyranny of the so-called "death tax." This is amusing, because up to this point, these same conservatives were assuring us that the evil of the estate tax was that it wreaks havoc on family farms and small businesses. Of course, that isn't true -- just about every small business and family farm in the country escapes estate taxes.
Nevertheless, conservatives told us that in repealing the estate tax, we'd be acting in the interests of the little guy.The timing of George Steinbrenner's death, and the ensuing right-wing celebration of his already wealthy heirs' good fortune, should make clear whose interests they really have at heart.
Rest in peace, Big Stein.
The tea party makes trouble with a capital T
The tea party makes trouble with a capital T
By Dana Milbank
The peaceful hamlet of Mason City, Iowa, hasn't been in the headlines much since it served as the model for River City in Meredith Willson's "The Music Man." But this week, Mason City raised a real Fuhrer.
The geniuses of the North Iowa Tea Party erected a billboard in town depicting three leaders: Adolf Hitler (with swastika), Vladimir Lenin (with hammer and sickle) and Barack Obama (with 2008 campaign logo). Over Hitler were the words "National Socialism," over Lenin was "Marxist Socialism" and over Obama was "Democrat Socialism."
"Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naïve," the billboard informed passing motorists.
Folks, we've got trouble in River City.
The Tea Partyers eventually took the billboard down -- to hush the national uproar they provoked, not because they thought they had done something wrong. "There's going to be a lot of billboards just like this across the United States," the group's leader told the Des Moines Register.
He's probably right about that. The vile sign in Mason City was not a one-off by a fringe group. It was a logical expression of a message supported by conservative thought leaders and propagated by high-level Republican politicians.
Late last month, Thomas Sowell of the conservative Hoover Institution penned an irresponsible column likening Obama's presidency (particularly his pushing BP to set aside funds for oil-spill victims) to the rise of Hitler in Germany and Lenin in the Soviet Union.
After the column came out, Sarah Palin tweeted her followers with instructions to "Read Thomas Sowell's article." Sowell's theme -- that Obama, like Hitler and Lenin, exploits "useful idiots" who don't know much about politics -- was strikingly similar to what wound up on the Iowa billboard.
Sowell to Palin to Mason City: They spread Nazi labels as smoothly as Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance turned double plays. And let's not deny an assist to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), who went to the House floor to read aloud the Obama-Nazi comparison by the "brilliant" Sowell.
Twenty years ago, the dawn of the Internet Age gave us Godwin's Law: If an online argument goes on long enough, somebody will eventually invoke Hitler. When that happens, it's basically the end of the conversation, because all rational discussion ceases when one side calls the other Nazis.
These sentiments have long existed on the fringe and always will. The problem is that conservative leaders and Republican politicians, in their blind rage against Obama these last 18 months, invited the epithets of the fringe into the mainstream. Godwin's Law has spread from the chat rooms and now applies to cable news and even to the floor of the House of Representatives.
Consider these tallies from Glenn Beck's show on Fox News since Obama's inauguration: 202 mentions of Nazis or Nazism, according to transcripts, 147 mentions of Hitler, 193 mentions of fascism or fascist, and another 24 bonus mentions of Joseph Goebbels. Most of these were directed in some form at Obama -- as were the majority of the 802 mentions of socialist or socialism on Beck's nightly "report."
It's not strictly a phenomenon of the right. California's Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Brown, likened his opponent's tactics to those of the Nazis, while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) talks blithely of a health care "holocaust" and an aide to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) dubs the opposition "Brownshirts."
But at the moment, the anger pendulum has swung far in the conservative direction, and accusations that once were beyond the pale -- not just talk of Nazis and Marxists but intimations of tyranny, revolution and bloodshed -- are now routine.
A few from recent weeks: Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) comes out in favor of lawsuits alleging that Obama was not an American citizen at birth. Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate challenging Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada, speaks about the possible need for violence to overcome the "tyrannical" government. Gohmert, the Sowell admirer, says the children of illegal immigrants are going to return and "blow us up."
Isn't there a grown-up to rein in these backbenchers when they go over the top? Don't ask House Minority Leader John Boehner, the man who would replace Nancy Pelosi as speaker. He accuses the Democrats of "snuffing out the America that I grew up in" and predicts a rebellion unlike anything "since 1776." Boehner also said one Democratic lawmaker "may be a dead man" for his vote on health care and predicted that the bill would bring "Armageddon."
Recall, Mr. Leader, the wisdom of the Mason City billboard: "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naïve."
danamilbank@washpost.com
By Dana Milbank
The peaceful hamlet of Mason City, Iowa, hasn't been in the headlines much since it served as the model for River City in Meredith Willson's "The Music Man." But this week, Mason City raised a real Fuhrer.
The geniuses of the North Iowa Tea Party erected a billboard in town depicting three leaders: Adolf Hitler (with swastika), Vladimir Lenin (with hammer and sickle) and Barack Obama (with 2008 campaign logo). Over Hitler were the words "National Socialism," over Lenin was "Marxist Socialism" and over Obama was "Democrat Socialism."
"Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naïve," the billboard informed passing motorists.
Folks, we've got trouble in River City.
The Tea Partyers eventually took the billboard down -- to hush the national uproar they provoked, not because they thought they had done something wrong. "There's going to be a lot of billboards just like this across the United States," the group's leader told the Des Moines Register.
He's probably right about that. The vile sign in Mason City was not a one-off by a fringe group. It was a logical expression of a message supported by conservative thought leaders and propagated by high-level Republican politicians.
Late last month, Thomas Sowell of the conservative Hoover Institution penned an irresponsible column likening Obama's presidency (particularly his pushing BP to set aside funds for oil-spill victims) to the rise of Hitler in Germany and Lenin in the Soviet Union.
After the column came out, Sarah Palin tweeted her followers with instructions to "Read Thomas Sowell's article." Sowell's theme -- that Obama, like Hitler and Lenin, exploits "useful idiots" who don't know much about politics -- was strikingly similar to what wound up on the Iowa billboard.
Sowell to Palin to Mason City: They spread Nazi labels as smoothly as Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance turned double plays. And let's not deny an assist to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), who went to the House floor to read aloud the Obama-Nazi comparison by the "brilliant" Sowell.
Twenty years ago, the dawn of the Internet Age gave us Godwin's Law: If an online argument goes on long enough, somebody will eventually invoke Hitler. When that happens, it's basically the end of the conversation, because all rational discussion ceases when one side calls the other Nazis.
These sentiments have long existed on the fringe and always will. The problem is that conservative leaders and Republican politicians, in their blind rage against Obama these last 18 months, invited the epithets of the fringe into the mainstream. Godwin's Law has spread from the chat rooms and now applies to cable news and even to the floor of the House of Representatives.
Consider these tallies from Glenn Beck's show on Fox News since Obama's inauguration: 202 mentions of Nazis or Nazism, according to transcripts, 147 mentions of Hitler, 193 mentions of fascism or fascist, and another 24 bonus mentions of Joseph Goebbels. Most of these were directed in some form at Obama -- as were the majority of the 802 mentions of socialist or socialism on Beck's nightly "report."
It's not strictly a phenomenon of the right. California's Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Brown, likened his opponent's tactics to those of the Nazis, while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) talks blithely of a health care "holocaust" and an aide to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) dubs the opposition "Brownshirts."
But at the moment, the anger pendulum has swung far in the conservative direction, and accusations that once were beyond the pale -- not just talk of Nazis and Marxists but intimations of tyranny, revolution and bloodshed -- are now routine.
A few from recent weeks: Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) comes out in favor of lawsuits alleging that Obama was not an American citizen at birth. Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate challenging Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada, speaks about the possible need for violence to overcome the "tyrannical" government. Gohmert, the Sowell admirer, says the children of illegal immigrants are going to return and "blow us up."
Isn't there a grown-up to rein in these backbenchers when they go over the top? Don't ask House Minority Leader John Boehner, the man who would replace Nancy Pelosi as speaker. He accuses the Democrats of "snuffing out the America that I grew up in" and predicts a rebellion unlike anything "since 1776." Boehner also said one Democratic lawmaker "may be a dead man" for his vote on health care and predicted that the bill would bring "Armageddon."
Recall, Mr. Leader, the wisdom of the Mason City billboard: "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naïve."
danamilbank@washpost.com
Monday, July 12, 2010
FOX News still right and WRONG!
Hemmer plays center, show leans right By Howard Kurtz Washington Post
NEW YORK -- Bill Hemmer, a middle-of-the-road guy from the middle of the country, sees himself as the straightest of straight arrows when it comes to news.
"The opinion-makers on our channel have enormous talent," he says in his Fox News office in midtown. "I deal in facts. I deal in evidence. And opinion, frankly, is not my comfort zone. Opinion news is something I'm not good at. It is in the DNA of certain individuals. I'm not one of them."
As the co-anchor of "America's Newsroom," Hemmer is supposed to kick off the straight-news stretch of Fox's daytime schedule at 9 a.m. But the bookings on the two-hour program, and sometimes the story selection, tilt markedly to the right.
The first solo guest on every show but one, from June 1 through July 2, was a Republican or conservative -- including Karl Rove (twice), Steve Forbes (twice), House GOP leaders John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Eric Cantor (Va.), Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, economist Art Laffer and Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute officials. Conservative commentators such as John Fund and Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, and Byron York and Chris Stirewalt of the Washington Examiner, appeared by themselves. Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who is a leading opponent of illegal immigration, was on three times. By contrast, a relative handful of Democratic lawmakers were given solo spots, while Democratic strategists were generally paired in debates with Republican counterparts.
"If the booking leans one way, it's the responsibility and duty of me as the host, the presenter, the interviewer, to make sure the topic is evenly treated," Hemmer says.
Asked about Rove, a Fox contributor who was interviewed after major primaries, Hemmer says of the most recent appearance: "I would argue that was a segment shot right down the middle. I wanted to know his opinion, based on his eight years at the White House. Karl Rove is the type of guest that not just our audience, but any audience, wants to hear from. If Mike McCurry was available to us, I would put him on TV tomorrow."
Despite the guest lineup, Hemmer, 45, takes a generally balanced approach, a style he honed in his native Cincinnati and during 10 years at CNN. After joining Fox as a daytime anchor in 2005, he was paired in the morning with rising star Megyn Kelly; when Kelly got her own 1 p.m. show in February, Martha MacCallum became Hemmer's co-host.
To Hemmer, who recently signed a multi-year, multimillion-dollar contract that has not yet been announced, the secret of the morning show's success is the pacing. "At 9 we put the gas in the tank, floor that accelerator and drive toward the news of the day," he says. "A viewer needs to understand a story in a short period of time, otherwise they will zone out or they will change the station. Complexities are difficult to sell."
With his infectious grin and golly-gee demeanor, Hemmer exudes boyish enthusiasm both on and off the air. He is quick to sing the praises of his network, his colleagues, Chairman Roger Ailes (a fellow Ohioan), even the Sixth Avenue lobby for its mix of visitors. Has he ever said anything on the air that he regrets? "Knock wood, I think I've been lucky to, as my mother would say, be careful before you speak," says Hemmer, his eyes occasionally wandering to his four television monitors in what he admits is a Pavlovian response.
As for his other assets, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Patricia Sheridan once asked him: "Do you think being a good-looking guy helped move your career along?" (Hemmer didn't deny it.)
"He's a wholesome reporter, he's from Ohio, he grew up in a large family, he has an innate curiosity and he's likable," says Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente. "He's almost an Everyman, a decent guy."
Hemmer's only overt act of rebellion took place at age 26. Having paid his dues at as a local Cincinnati producer by logging every Reds pitch and Bengals play, Hemmer was working as a sports reporter for WCPO -- an experience he still regards as valuable: "A sportscaster is taught at an early age how to marry images and thoughts in your mind and translate it into words on the screen."
But he grew bored and resigned to backpack around the world, spending a year in countries from Vietnam to India to Egypt. When Hemmer returned, WCPO made him a local reporter. Two years after that, in 1995, Hemmer jumped to CNN. He gained a bit of national attention during the 2000 election recount, when he spent 37 days in Tallahassee and was nicknamed the "Chad Lad."
Hemmer is diplomatic in describing his departure from CNN, where was co-anchoring "American Morning" with Soledad O'Brien. "I think they saw a better opportunity for me in Washington," he says, but "I loved New York City." It's true that CNN executives offered Hemmer a White House correspondent's job, but that was after they decided to remove him from the morning show. Two months later, he signed with the competition. "What struck me about Fox from afar is they seemed to have such energy and vibrance that others had lacked," Hemmer says.
Hurricane Katrina struck the day after he started, and Hemmer spent weeks in Louisiana. A nimble performer in the field, he has also reported from Iraq and the earthquake in Haiti, showcasing the tragedies rather than his emotions.
Closer to home, he spends weekends at his house in a woodsy area of Sag Harbor. Sounding like a man who missed something on life's checklist, Hemmer notes that his four siblings are married and he has 11 nieces and nephews. "The next chapter has got to be children," he says.
Hemmer says his staff is smaller than at CNN, with a dozen people helping him and MacCallum get on the air. The program dominates its time period, averaging 1.3 million viewers this year, more than the combined audience for CNN, MSNBC and HLN.
A turning point, in Hemmer's view, came during the health care debate in the summer of 2009: "We covered those town-hall meetings with greater vigor than our competition, and we were rewarded with viewers. It was better television."
Another view is that Fox seized upon the footage of angry constituents shouting at Democratic members of Congress because it undermined the president's health-care push. Hemmer begs to differ. "I don't think it was anger toward the Obama administration," he says. "It was an honest insecurity on the part of average Americans."
Immigration is a major issue on Fox, and "America's Newsroom" covers it almost daily, as illustrated by the repeated booking of Pearce, the lawmaker who pushed for the tough Arizona immigration law that the Justice Department has sued to invalidate. As Hemmer, who uses the preferred Fox shorthand "illegals," recently told Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.): "We talk about this story an awful lot." One Democrat who appeared twice recently, Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, opposes the White House stance on immigration.
Hemmer also feels strongly about federal spending, a constant topic on the show. "The deficit is staggering," he says. His lead-off commentator is often Fox business anchor Stuart Varney, who rarely misses an opportunity to criticize the administration's fiscal policies. "The president has demonized all kinds of industries," Varney said on another Fox show. Another frequent commentator on the program is former judge Andrew Napolitano, whose book "Lies the Government Told You" has a foreword by Ron Paul.
On July 2, two Republican congressmen, Michigan's Pete Hoekstra and Texas's John Culberson, appeared in the first half hour.
Hemmer insists he is not concerned by the ideological nature of the bookings as long as his interviews are "even-handed." He is unfailingly polite with his guests, and says Democratic members of Congress "are welcome with open arms."
At times his Midwestern upbringing is all too evident. During the recent airing of a much-bleeped audiotape from the trial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Hemmer visibly blanched and looked embarrassed about the excised expletives.
Unlike media mavens whom he sees as being "locked in the Manhattan world," he remains conscious of his Ohio roots. "I hear from the folks back home all the time," Hemmer says. "Too often in our industry we forget about the rest of the country."
War and the GOP
After falling out with National Review several years ago, Ann Coulter is now taking on the editor of the Weekly Standard. She is supporting Michael Steele's criticism of the Afghan war and taking on Bill Kristol for slamming Steele:
"Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.
Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan "was a war of Obama's choosing" -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?). I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too. . . .
"Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately."
No way, says Kristol. And what exactly would Liz Cheney resign from? Her family?
At Politics Daily, Matt Lewis sees an important schism on the right?
"Until now, there has been somewhat of an unspoken rule, adhered to by most on the right, that conservative Republicans would vigorously oppose Obama's liberal domestic policies while supporting his efforts to win in Afghanistan. After all, Republicans had staunchly backed George W. Bush when he made the case for fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Changing course now would seem craven -- playing politics with national security. . . .
"Is Coulter's position a less high-minded one? After a decade of defending Bush's actions, and getting beat up for it, are Republicans now saying it's time for a Democratic president to get the Bush treatment?"
It's ironic that Steele, who was initially savaged for his gaffe in calling Afghanistan a war of Obama's choosing, is now being credited with sparking a serious debate.
In the New Republic, Andrew Bacevich skewers the president as a non-believer:
"Much as Iraq was Bush's war, Afghanistan has become Obama's war. Yet the president clearly wants nothing more than to rid himself of his war. Obama has prolonged and escalated a conflict in which he himself manifestly does not believe. When after months of deliberation (or delay) he unveiled his Afghan 'surge' in December 2009, the presidential trumpet blew charge and recall simultaneously. Even as Obama ordered more troops into combat, he announced their planned withdrawal 'because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own'. . . .
"Today, when they look at Washington, Americans see a cool, dispassionate, calculating president whose administration lacks a moral core. For prosecution exhibit number one, we need look no further than the meandering course of Obama's war, its casualties and costs mounting without discernible purpose. . . .
"The question demands to be asked: Who is more deserving of contempt? The commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause, however misguided, in which he sincerely believes? Or the commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause in which he manifestly does not believe and yet refuses to forsake?"
A more charitable view is that Obama is trying to prevail in what is now a nine-year-old war while acutely aware of the eroding political support at home.
Sympathy for Palin
The Dave Weigel story is being kept alive by . . . Dave Weigel. In an Esquire piece, the former Washington Post blogger says:
"The Drudge Report ran the story. Millions of people knew I was a mean, snarky, stab-your-back punk behind the scenes. . . . I felt terrible, but at some level I knew I could handle it. I prepared for the deluge of calls and e-mails asking me to comment.
"The surprise: I didn't get many calls. Some people asked for interviews: the Post's ombudsman Andy Alexander, media critic Howard Kurtz, blogger Greg Sargent, Michael Calderone of Yahoo! News, and Keach Hagey of Politico. Later, Daniel Foster of National Review, David Carr of the New York Times, John Aaron of Maryland's WTOP, Mitch Berg of Minnesota's AM1280, and a producer for Good Morning America. (I politely no-commented -- something I hated when it was done to me -- until I apologized for the e-mails on BigJournalism.com.) As far as attempts to get comments went, that was it. If it sounds like a lot, try a Google News search for my name; you'll find more than five hundred articles about what happened. Approximately 1 percent reflect any attempt to contact me. . . .
"Over the first churning forty-eight hours of this whole mess, I resisted -- and then accepted -- a new sympathy for a politician I'd never pretended to admire much: Sarah Palin. A political celebrity who raises money and appears on TV needs the media in a way that a reporter doesn't. But damn if I didn't feel sorry for the way every utterance Palin ever makes is taffy-pulled and inspected for lies."
The LeBron circus
That ESPN special is still getting panned -- you can see my interview with Mike Wilbon here -- with the likes of James Rainey calling the network LeBron James's "chief enabler" in the LAT. But Daily Beast writer Bryan Curtis says the sports channel should be judged by a different standard.
"ESPN isn't a pure-as-driven-snow news network the way that CNN is. ESPN pays hundreds of millions of dollars for the rights to televise sports events like Major League Baseball, NASCAR, college basketball, college football, Monday Night Football, and the NBA. (Example: ESPN recently paid a reported $500 million for the right to televise four college-football bowl games over a period of four years.) So from the jump, the network is in business with its subjects in the way CNN would never be with, say, Barack Obama.
"At the same time, thanks to its swashbuckling executive editor John Walsh, a veteran of Rolling Stone and U.S. News & World Report, ESPN has a very robust, fairly old-school newsgathering operation. The network's reporters -- many of them print veterans -- try to break news about athletes that athletes would rather not have broken. . . .
"Don't blame LeBron James, who has already been demonized, for his star turn. ESPN has been televising James' games since he was in high school; you can hardly blame him for coming back to it when he needed a time slot. 'We created this monster, and he's just playing along,' Jackie MacMullan, yet another ESPN basketball reporter, commented on ESPNews, yet another ESPN outlet, the other day."
Atlantic's Marc Ambinder examines the process through a political lens:
"For things like this, single-topic exclusive interview programs almost never go well. When was the last time that a politician, or, anyone, really, gave an exclusive interview where they revealed their decision and it didn't come off as self-indulgent? Using the Boys and Girls Club as a backdrop looked cynical when it was announced, and it looks like LeBron used the good folks there as a prop. . . .
"The media always makes the story about themselves, somehow. ESPN's lugubrious and unnecessary prime-time special is getting as much attention from the sports media as the decision itself. . . .
"Forget, for a moment, that the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers was recently in favor of moving his team to Oklahoma. His churlish, arrogant, and parochial response to LeBron's decision was beneath his dignity. It may make Clevelanders (Clevelagonians) feel better about themselves for a few days, but it makes no sense."
Back together
After a rough period that also included his decision to leave his CNN show, Larry King's divorce is off. TMZ reports that King and his wife have withdrawn the papers as part of their reconciliation.
Howard Kurtz also works for CNN and hosts its weekly media program, "Reliable Sources."
NEW YORK -- Bill Hemmer, a middle-of-the-road guy from the middle of the country, sees himself as the straightest of straight arrows when it comes to news.
"The opinion-makers on our channel have enormous talent," he says in his Fox News office in midtown. "I deal in facts. I deal in evidence. And opinion, frankly, is not my comfort zone. Opinion news is something I'm not good at. It is in the DNA of certain individuals. I'm not one of them."
As the co-anchor of "America's Newsroom," Hemmer is supposed to kick off the straight-news stretch of Fox's daytime schedule at 9 a.m. But the bookings on the two-hour program, and sometimes the story selection, tilt markedly to the right.
The first solo guest on every show but one, from June 1 through July 2, was a Republican or conservative -- including Karl Rove (twice), Steve Forbes (twice), House GOP leaders John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Eric Cantor (Va.), Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, economist Art Laffer and Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute officials. Conservative commentators such as John Fund and Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, and Byron York and Chris Stirewalt of the Washington Examiner, appeared by themselves. Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who is a leading opponent of illegal immigration, was on three times. By contrast, a relative handful of Democratic lawmakers were given solo spots, while Democratic strategists were generally paired in debates with Republican counterparts.
"If the booking leans one way, it's the responsibility and duty of me as the host, the presenter, the interviewer, to make sure the topic is evenly treated," Hemmer says.
Asked about Rove, a Fox contributor who was interviewed after major primaries, Hemmer says of the most recent appearance: "I would argue that was a segment shot right down the middle. I wanted to know his opinion, based on his eight years at the White House. Karl Rove is the type of guest that not just our audience, but any audience, wants to hear from. If Mike McCurry was available to us, I would put him on TV tomorrow."
Despite the guest lineup, Hemmer, 45, takes a generally balanced approach, a style he honed in his native Cincinnati and during 10 years at CNN. After joining Fox as a daytime anchor in 2005, he was paired in the morning with rising star Megyn Kelly; when Kelly got her own 1 p.m. show in February, Martha MacCallum became Hemmer's co-host.
To Hemmer, who recently signed a multi-year, multimillion-dollar contract that has not yet been announced, the secret of the morning show's success is the pacing. "At 9 we put the gas in the tank, floor that accelerator and drive toward the news of the day," he says. "A viewer needs to understand a story in a short period of time, otherwise they will zone out or they will change the station. Complexities are difficult to sell."
With his infectious grin and golly-gee demeanor, Hemmer exudes boyish enthusiasm both on and off the air. He is quick to sing the praises of his network, his colleagues, Chairman Roger Ailes (a fellow Ohioan), even the Sixth Avenue lobby for its mix of visitors. Has he ever said anything on the air that he regrets? "Knock wood, I think I've been lucky to, as my mother would say, be careful before you speak," says Hemmer, his eyes occasionally wandering to his four television monitors in what he admits is a Pavlovian response.
As for his other assets, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Patricia Sheridan once asked him: "Do you think being a good-looking guy helped move your career along?" (Hemmer didn't deny it.)
"He's a wholesome reporter, he's from Ohio, he grew up in a large family, he has an innate curiosity and he's likable," says Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente. "He's almost an Everyman, a decent guy."
Hemmer's only overt act of rebellion took place at age 26. Having paid his dues at as a local Cincinnati producer by logging every Reds pitch and Bengals play, Hemmer was working as a sports reporter for WCPO -- an experience he still regards as valuable: "A sportscaster is taught at an early age how to marry images and thoughts in your mind and translate it into words on the screen."
But he grew bored and resigned to backpack around the world, spending a year in countries from Vietnam to India to Egypt. When Hemmer returned, WCPO made him a local reporter. Two years after that, in 1995, Hemmer jumped to CNN. He gained a bit of national attention during the 2000 election recount, when he spent 37 days in Tallahassee and was nicknamed the "Chad Lad."
Hemmer is diplomatic in describing his departure from CNN, where was co-anchoring "American Morning" with Soledad O'Brien. "I think they saw a better opportunity for me in Washington," he says, but "I loved New York City." It's true that CNN executives offered Hemmer a White House correspondent's job, but that was after they decided to remove him from the morning show. Two months later, he signed with the competition. "What struck me about Fox from afar is they seemed to have such energy and vibrance that others had lacked," Hemmer says.
Hurricane Katrina struck the day after he started, and Hemmer spent weeks in Louisiana. A nimble performer in the field, he has also reported from Iraq and the earthquake in Haiti, showcasing the tragedies rather than his emotions.
Closer to home, he spends weekends at his house in a woodsy area of Sag Harbor. Sounding like a man who missed something on life's checklist, Hemmer notes that his four siblings are married and he has 11 nieces and nephews. "The next chapter has got to be children," he says.
Hemmer says his staff is smaller than at CNN, with a dozen people helping him and MacCallum get on the air. The program dominates its time period, averaging 1.3 million viewers this year, more than the combined audience for CNN, MSNBC and HLN.
A turning point, in Hemmer's view, came during the health care debate in the summer of 2009: "We covered those town-hall meetings with greater vigor than our competition, and we were rewarded with viewers. It was better television."
Another view is that Fox seized upon the footage of angry constituents shouting at Democratic members of Congress because it undermined the president's health-care push. Hemmer begs to differ. "I don't think it was anger toward the Obama administration," he says. "It was an honest insecurity on the part of average Americans."
Immigration is a major issue on Fox, and "America's Newsroom" covers it almost daily, as illustrated by the repeated booking of Pearce, the lawmaker who pushed for the tough Arizona immigration law that the Justice Department has sued to invalidate. As Hemmer, who uses the preferred Fox shorthand "illegals," recently told Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.): "We talk about this story an awful lot." One Democrat who appeared twice recently, Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, opposes the White House stance on immigration.
Hemmer also feels strongly about federal spending, a constant topic on the show. "The deficit is staggering," he says. His lead-off commentator is often Fox business anchor Stuart Varney, who rarely misses an opportunity to criticize the administration's fiscal policies. "The president has demonized all kinds of industries," Varney said on another Fox show. Another frequent commentator on the program is former judge Andrew Napolitano, whose book "Lies the Government Told You" has a foreword by Ron Paul.
On July 2, two Republican congressmen, Michigan's Pete Hoekstra and Texas's John Culberson, appeared in the first half hour.
Hemmer insists he is not concerned by the ideological nature of the bookings as long as his interviews are "even-handed." He is unfailingly polite with his guests, and says Democratic members of Congress "are welcome with open arms."
At times his Midwestern upbringing is all too evident. During the recent airing of a much-bleeped audiotape from the trial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Hemmer visibly blanched and looked embarrassed about the excised expletives.
Unlike media mavens whom he sees as being "locked in the Manhattan world," he remains conscious of his Ohio roots. "I hear from the folks back home all the time," Hemmer says. "Too often in our industry we forget about the rest of the country."
War and the GOP
After falling out with National Review several years ago, Ann Coulter is now taking on the editor of the Weekly Standard. She is supporting Michael Steele's criticism of the Afghan war and taking on Bill Kristol for slamming Steele:
"Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.
Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan "was a war of Obama's choosing" -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?). I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too. . . .
"Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately."
No way, says Kristol. And what exactly would Liz Cheney resign from? Her family?
At Politics Daily, Matt Lewis sees an important schism on the right?
"Until now, there has been somewhat of an unspoken rule, adhered to by most on the right, that conservative Republicans would vigorously oppose Obama's liberal domestic policies while supporting his efforts to win in Afghanistan. After all, Republicans had staunchly backed George W. Bush when he made the case for fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Changing course now would seem craven -- playing politics with national security. . . .
"Is Coulter's position a less high-minded one? After a decade of defending Bush's actions, and getting beat up for it, are Republicans now saying it's time for a Democratic president to get the Bush treatment?"
It's ironic that Steele, who was initially savaged for his gaffe in calling Afghanistan a war of Obama's choosing, is now being credited with sparking a serious debate.
In the New Republic, Andrew Bacevich skewers the president as a non-believer:
"Much as Iraq was Bush's war, Afghanistan has become Obama's war. Yet the president clearly wants nothing more than to rid himself of his war. Obama has prolonged and escalated a conflict in which he himself manifestly does not believe. When after months of deliberation (or delay) he unveiled his Afghan 'surge' in December 2009, the presidential trumpet blew charge and recall simultaneously. Even as Obama ordered more troops into combat, he announced their planned withdrawal 'because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own'. . . .
"Today, when they look at Washington, Americans see a cool, dispassionate, calculating president whose administration lacks a moral core. For prosecution exhibit number one, we need look no further than the meandering course of Obama's war, its casualties and costs mounting without discernible purpose. . . .
"The question demands to be asked: Who is more deserving of contempt? The commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause, however misguided, in which he sincerely believes? Or the commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause in which he manifestly does not believe and yet refuses to forsake?"
A more charitable view is that Obama is trying to prevail in what is now a nine-year-old war while acutely aware of the eroding political support at home.
Sympathy for Palin
The Dave Weigel story is being kept alive by . . . Dave Weigel. In an Esquire piece, the former Washington Post blogger says:
"The Drudge Report ran the story. Millions of people knew I was a mean, snarky, stab-your-back punk behind the scenes. . . . I felt terrible, but at some level I knew I could handle it. I prepared for the deluge of calls and e-mails asking me to comment.
"The surprise: I didn't get many calls. Some people asked for interviews: the Post's ombudsman Andy Alexander, media critic Howard Kurtz, blogger Greg Sargent, Michael Calderone of Yahoo! News, and Keach Hagey of Politico. Later, Daniel Foster of National Review, David Carr of the New York Times, John Aaron of Maryland's WTOP, Mitch Berg of Minnesota's AM1280, and a producer for Good Morning America. (I politely no-commented -- something I hated when it was done to me -- until I apologized for the e-mails on BigJournalism.com.) As far as attempts to get comments went, that was it. If it sounds like a lot, try a Google News search for my name; you'll find more than five hundred articles about what happened. Approximately 1 percent reflect any attempt to contact me. . . .
"Over the first churning forty-eight hours of this whole mess, I resisted -- and then accepted -- a new sympathy for a politician I'd never pretended to admire much: Sarah Palin. A political celebrity who raises money and appears on TV needs the media in a way that a reporter doesn't. But damn if I didn't feel sorry for the way every utterance Palin ever makes is taffy-pulled and inspected for lies."
The LeBron circus
That ESPN special is still getting panned -- you can see my interview with Mike Wilbon here -- with the likes of James Rainey calling the network LeBron James's "chief enabler" in the LAT. But Daily Beast writer Bryan Curtis says the sports channel should be judged by a different standard.
"ESPN isn't a pure-as-driven-snow news network the way that CNN is. ESPN pays hundreds of millions of dollars for the rights to televise sports events like Major League Baseball, NASCAR, college basketball, college football, Monday Night Football, and the NBA. (Example: ESPN recently paid a reported $500 million for the right to televise four college-football bowl games over a period of four years.) So from the jump, the network is in business with its subjects in the way CNN would never be with, say, Barack Obama.
"At the same time, thanks to its swashbuckling executive editor John Walsh, a veteran of Rolling Stone and U.S. News & World Report, ESPN has a very robust, fairly old-school newsgathering operation. The network's reporters -- many of them print veterans -- try to break news about athletes that athletes would rather not have broken. . . .
"Don't blame LeBron James, who has already been demonized, for his star turn. ESPN has been televising James' games since he was in high school; you can hardly blame him for coming back to it when he needed a time slot. 'We created this monster, and he's just playing along,' Jackie MacMullan, yet another ESPN basketball reporter, commented on ESPNews, yet another ESPN outlet, the other day."
Atlantic's Marc Ambinder examines the process through a political lens:
"For things like this, single-topic exclusive interview programs almost never go well. When was the last time that a politician, or, anyone, really, gave an exclusive interview where they revealed their decision and it didn't come off as self-indulgent? Using the Boys and Girls Club as a backdrop looked cynical when it was announced, and it looks like LeBron used the good folks there as a prop. . . .
"The media always makes the story about themselves, somehow. ESPN's lugubrious and unnecessary prime-time special is getting as much attention from the sports media as the decision itself. . . .
"Forget, for a moment, that the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers was recently in favor of moving his team to Oklahoma. His churlish, arrogant, and parochial response to LeBron's decision was beneath his dignity. It may make Clevelanders (Clevelagonians) feel better about themselves for a few days, but it makes no sense."
Back together
After a rough period that also included his decision to leave his CNN show, Larry King's divorce is off. TMZ reports that King and his wife have withdrawn the papers as part of their reconciliation.
Howard Kurtz also works for CNN and hosts its weekly media program, "Reliable Sources."
Friday, July 09, 2010
HOW DUMB ARE SOME PEOPLE?!
Media Matters: The greatest science "scandal" "in the history of man" predictably falls apart
In their never-ending quest to prove that they understand the intricacies of climate science better than actual climate scientists, conservative media figures routinely promote any ridiculous "evidence" they think undermines the scientific consensus about climate change.
This is a group that repeatedly points to snowstorms in February as proof that global warming is not real; claims that CO2 can't be a pollutant because "we breathe" it; and ignores actual temperature data to baselessly claim that the Earth is really "cooling."
Last year, conservative climate change skeptics, in the words of Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel, thought they had found a "gold mine." Conservative media figures seized on emails stolen from climate scientists and proceeded to completely distort their contents. As we pointed out repeatedly at the time, this "scandal" relied on outrageous misrepresentations of the stolen emails and did not in any way undermine the scientific consensus about climate change.
Nevertheless, conservative media figures incessantly hyped the non-scandal with their usual overblown rhetoric:
Glenn Beck -- who says he is not a conspiracy theorist, remember -- suggested in the wake of "Climategate" that climate change is a "scam." He also said that if the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report "had been done by Japanese scientists, there is not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri."
Noted climatologist Rush Limbaugh, who frequently decries the supposed global warming "hoax," proposed that all of the scientists involved in "Climategate" should be "named and fired, drawn and quartered, or whatever it is."
Andrew Breitbart called for "capital punishment" for NASA scientist James Hansen, because "Climategate" was supposedly "high treason."
The Washington Times, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Investor's Business Daily, The American Spectator's Robert Stacy McCain, Rich Lowry, Newsmax's James Hirsen, and Michael Ledeen all joined forces to smear the scientific consensus on climate change as a "cult."
Fox News' Mike Huckabee explained that "Jesus would be a truthseeker" while discussing the "revelation" that scientists had "cooked" climate change data.
The crew at Fox & Friends spent this year's Earth Day promoting an important cause. No, not encouraging environmental consciousness -- they devoted the show to pushing "Climategate" falsehoods in order to falsely claim that "scientists held back data that discredits theories on global warming." They were joined by Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, who was there to complain about non-Fox networks "dismiss[ing]" and "ignor[ing]" the story.
Last December, Bozell told Lou Dobbs that "Climategate" is the "biggest scandal in terms of science, finance, and politics ... in the history of man." After Bozell compared the climate science "cover-up" to "the craziness" of Dan Brown's fiction, he actually managed to draw laughter from Dobbs. Unfortunately, contrary to Bozell's suggestion that media outlets ignored the story, numerous non-Fox "Climategate" stories adopted conservatives' dishonest framing of the non-story.
And now for the inevitable conclusion of this manufactured controversy.
As reported by The New York Times' Andrew Revkin -- who, by the way, Rush Limbaugh thinks should "just go kill" himself -- the Independent Climate Change Email Review "cleared climate scientists and administrators" involved in "Climategate" of "malfeasance." This follows several other exonerations of the scientists involved in the phony scandal. In response, Media Matters, joined by numerous progressive and clean energy groups, called on all outlets that reported on the original "Climategate" controversy to set the record straight.
So this leaves us where we were before the "Climategate" freakout: There is still overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the theory of global warming.
And once again conservative media proved that they don't hesitate to rely on blatant distortions, outright falsehoods, and a complete disregard for reality to advance their political causes.
Mainstream media outlets would be doing everyone a service if they remembered that the next time they decide to report on whatever Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and the perpetual conservative outrage machine are yelling about.
Conservatives' phony scandal of the week: The Obama Justice Department and the New Black Panther Party
While we're on the subject of manufactured scandals that respectable media outlets shouldn't take seriously, Fox News and its friends in the conservative echo chamber spent much of the week promoting phony, trumped-up allegations against the Justice Department.
In short, conservative media outlets have been aggressively promoting the charge by GOP activist J. Christian Adams that President Obama's Justice Department engaged in racially charged "corruption" when it partially dismissed a case against members of the New Black Panther Party for allegedly engaging in voter intimidation outside of a Philadelphia polling center on Election Day in 2008.
As we have documented extensively, Adams should not be trusted. He is a long-time right-wing activist with extensive ties to the Bush-era politicization of the Justice Department. Adams himself has admitted that he lacks first-hand knowledge to support his accusations. Additionally, Adams' charge that the DOJ's action in the New Black Panther case shows unprecedented, racially motivated corruption is undermined by the fact that the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one of the defendants, and that the Bush DOJ declined to pursue similar allegations against a group of Minutemen -- one of whom was carrying a gun -- in 2006.
Even the Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called the New Black Panthers case "very small potatoes" and said an investigation into the DOJ's decision is full of "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges."
And yet again, the fact that this is a completely manufactured scandal didn't stop conservative media figures from engaging in one of their time-honored traditions: attempting to obscure their own problems with race by accusing others of racism.
Radio host Jim Quinn -- who once told "race-baiting" African-American "ingrates" to "get on your knees" and "kiss the American dirt" because slavery brought them to the U.S. -- hyped the New Black Panther story by calling the civil rights community "race-baiting poverty pimps."
Rush Limbaugh -- who earlier this week announced that if Obama wasn't black he'd be a "tour guide in Honolulu" and claimed Obama is using the office of the presidency to seek "payback" for the country's history of racism -- forwarded Adams' charge that the case was dropped because of racially charged corruption.
Beck, who infamously called President Obama a "racist" with a "deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture," declared that the Obama administration is "full" of "people that will excuse" the "hatred" of the New Black Panthers. He also relied on falsehoods to try to connect Obama to the New Black Panthers, and claimed today that the New Black Panthers are part of Obama's "army of thugs."
Of course, the New Black Panthers are a fringe hate group, and only a cynical race-baiter like Glenn Beck would claim they are somehow part of Barack Obama's imaginary "army of thugs."
But I'm sure they appreciate all of the publicity, courtesy of Glenn Beck and Fox News.
Bek Younuhvercity
This week also marked the launch of Beck's latest attempt to grab money from "educate" his audience: Beck University.
As Beck described it, the online Beck University is an "academic program" that would be a "unique experience bringing together experts in the fields of religion, American history, and economics." At the outset of the first "course" -- Faith 101, with frequent Beck guest/promoter of historical misinformation David Barton -- Beck announced that viewers "will learn more in the next hour than you've probably learned in your entire life about American history."
Laughable hyperbole aside, as we pointed out this week, Glenn Beck is uniquely unqualified to found a university, considering he regularly traffics in bizarre conspiracy theories, distortions, and downright falsehoods on a wide variety of subjects.
The day after the first "course" at Beck University, Beck stood in front of his blackboard and labeled various historical figures "heros" or "villians."
In their never-ending quest to prove that they understand the intricacies of climate science better than actual climate scientists, conservative media figures routinely promote any ridiculous "evidence" they think undermines the scientific consensus about climate change.
This is a group that repeatedly points to snowstorms in February as proof that global warming is not real; claims that CO2 can't be a pollutant because "we breathe" it; and ignores actual temperature data to baselessly claim that the Earth is really "cooling."
Last year, conservative climate change skeptics, in the words of Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel, thought they had found a "gold mine." Conservative media figures seized on emails stolen from climate scientists and proceeded to completely distort their contents. As we pointed out repeatedly at the time, this "scandal" relied on outrageous misrepresentations of the stolen emails and did not in any way undermine the scientific consensus about climate change.
Nevertheless, conservative media figures incessantly hyped the non-scandal with their usual overblown rhetoric:
Glenn Beck -- who says he is not a conspiracy theorist, remember -- suggested in the wake of "Climategate" that climate change is a "scam." He also said that if the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report "had been done by Japanese scientists, there is not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri."
Noted climatologist Rush Limbaugh, who frequently decries the supposed global warming "hoax," proposed that all of the scientists involved in "Climategate" should be "named and fired, drawn and quartered, or whatever it is."
Andrew Breitbart called for "capital punishment" for NASA scientist James Hansen, because "Climategate" was supposedly "high treason."
The Washington Times, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Investor's Business Daily, The American Spectator's Robert Stacy McCain, Rich Lowry, Newsmax's James Hirsen, and Michael Ledeen all joined forces to smear the scientific consensus on climate change as a "cult."
Fox News' Mike Huckabee explained that "Jesus would be a truthseeker" while discussing the "revelation" that scientists had "cooked" climate change data.
The crew at Fox & Friends spent this year's Earth Day promoting an important cause. No, not encouraging environmental consciousness -- they devoted the show to pushing "Climategate" falsehoods in order to falsely claim that "scientists held back data that discredits theories on global warming." They were joined by Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, who was there to complain about non-Fox networks "dismiss[ing]" and "ignor[ing]" the story.
Last December, Bozell told Lou Dobbs that "Climategate" is the "biggest scandal in terms of science, finance, and politics ... in the history of man." After Bozell compared the climate science "cover-up" to "the craziness" of Dan Brown's fiction, he actually managed to draw laughter from Dobbs. Unfortunately, contrary to Bozell's suggestion that media outlets ignored the story, numerous non-Fox "Climategate" stories adopted conservatives' dishonest framing of the non-story.
And now for the inevitable conclusion of this manufactured controversy.
As reported by The New York Times' Andrew Revkin -- who, by the way, Rush Limbaugh thinks should "just go kill" himself -- the Independent Climate Change Email Review "cleared climate scientists and administrators" involved in "Climategate" of "malfeasance." This follows several other exonerations of the scientists involved in the phony scandal. In response, Media Matters, joined by numerous progressive and clean energy groups, called on all outlets that reported on the original "Climategate" controversy to set the record straight.
So this leaves us where we were before the "Climategate" freakout: There is still overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the theory of global warming.
And once again conservative media proved that they don't hesitate to rely on blatant distortions, outright falsehoods, and a complete disregard for reality to advance their political causes.
Mainstream media outlets would be doing everyone a service if they remembered that the next time they decide to report on whatever Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and the perpetual conservative outrage machine are yelling about.
Conservatives' phony scandal of the week: The Obama Justice Department and the New Black Panther Party
While we're on the subject of manufactured scandals that respectable media outlets shouldn't take seriously, Fox News and its friends in the conservative echo chamber spent much of the week promoting phony, trumped-up allegations against the Justice Department.
In short, conservative media outlets have been aggressively promoting the charge by GOP activist J. Christian Adams that President Obama's Justice Department engaged in racially charged "corruption" when it partially dismissed a case against members of the New Black Panther Party for allegedly engaging in voter intimidation outside of a Philadelphia polling center on Election Day in 2008.
As we have documented extensively, Adams should not be trusted. He is a long-time right-wing activist with extensive ties to the Bush-era politicization of the Justice Department. Adams himself has admitted that he lacks first-hand knowledge to support his accusations. Additionally, Adams' charge that the DOJ's action in the New Black Panther case shows unprecedented, racially motivated corruption is undermined by the fact that the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one of the defendants, and that the Bush DOJ declined to pursue similar allegations against a group of Minutemen -- one of whom was carrying a gun -- in 2006.
Even the Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called the New Black Panthers case "very small potatoes" and said an investigation into the DOJ's decision is full of "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges."
And yet again, the fact that this is a completely manufactured scandal didn't stop conservative media figures from engaging in one of their time-honored traditions: attempting to obscure their own problems with race by accusing others of racism.
Radio host Jim Quinn -- who once told "race-baiting" African-American "ingrates" to "get on your knees" and "kiss the American dirt" because slavery brought them to the U.S. -- hyped the New Black Panther story by calling the civil rights community "race-baiting poverty pimps."
Rush Limbaugh -- who earlier this week announced that if Obama wasn't black he'd be a "tour guide in Honolulu" and claimed Obama is using the office of the presidency to seek "payback" for the country's history of racism -- forwarded Adams' charge that the case was dropped because of racially charged corruption.
Beck, who infamously called President Obama a "racist" with a "deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture," declared that the Obama administration is "full" of "people that will excuse" the "hatred" of the New Black Panthers. He also relied on falsehoods to try to connect Obama to the New Black Panthers, and claimed today that the New Black Panthers are part of Obama's "army of thugs."
Of course, the New Black Panthers are a fringe hate group, and only a cynical race-baiter like Glenn Beck would claim they are somehow part of Barack Obama's imaginary "army of thugs."
But I'm sure they appreciate all of the publicity, courtesy of Glenn Beck and Fox News.
Bek Younuhvercity
This week also marked the launch of Beck's latest attempt to grab money from "educate" his audience: Beck University.
As Beck described it, the online Beck University is an "academic program" that would be a "unique experience bringing together experts in the fields of religion, American history, and economics." At the outset of the first "course" -- Faith 101, with frequent Beck guest/promoter of historical misinformation David Barton -- Beck announced that viewers "will learn more in the next hour than you've probably learned in your entire life about American history."
Laughable hyperbole aside, as we pointed out this week, Glenn Beck is uniquely unqualified to found a university, considering he regularly traffics in bizarre conspiracy theories, distortions, and downright falsehoods on a wide variety of subjects.
The day after the first "course" at Beck University, Beck stood in front of his blackboard and labeled various historical figures "heros" or "villians."
Friday, June 25, 2010
Fox News' oily sheen Media Matters
Media Matters: Fox News' oily sheen
There is a disaster unfolding in America. The Gulf coast has become the scene of one of the greatest tragedies this country has ever seen. Innocent, hard-working people who were guilty of nothing except trying to earn their keep are up against it, their lives and livelihoods threatened by a growing, toxic mess that -- with a malignance that seems almost purposeful -- destroys everything it touches.
Oh, and there's an oil spill too.
That, of course, is the posture Fox News has taken towards the Gulf oil disaster, having decided that the real threat to the nation is not the millions of gallons of oil floating on and under the Gulf of Mexico but, rather, the Obama administration's reaction to the disaster and efforts to hold the culpable parties responsible. And, as you'd expect, such a ridiculous position requires some wild fractures of the truth and an almost complete abandonment of common sense.
The crux of the Fox News position is that the White House is simultaneously doing too much and not enough. If you've tuned in to the Murdoch network at any point over the past couple of months, you've probably seen the likes of Rudy Giuliani complaining that the Obama administration waited 50 days or so before offering any sort of response to the oil spill. America's perpetually confused mayor was off by about 49 days -- the Coast Guard was on the scene immediately and the president dispatched officials to the region the day after BP's rig exploded. None of those easily verifiably facts were enough to stymie the conspiracy theory, articulated by Fox News' Eric Bolling, that Obama "let it leak so he could renege on his promise to ... allow some offshore drilling."
Those Fox Newsers who were magnanimous enough to acknowledge that the White House was, in fact, responding to the disaster concocted a series of lies to claim that they were dragging their feet. Did the administration turn down foreign assistance for the clean up effort? Did the White House unreasonably delay the purchase of Maine oil booms? Did Obama dally in approving sand berm construction? The answer to each of these questions is "no," but on Fox News they were presented as the absolute truth.
The flip side to the administration's allegedly criminal neglect was their allegedly criminal efforts to hold BP accountable for the disaster. Echoing Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) now-infamous apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward over the deal the administration struck with BP to establish a $20 billion escrow fund to pay for spill-related damages, Fox News personalities rushed to declare the fund a "shakedown" and a "stickup." Others declared it was unconstitutional for the government to force BP to set up the account (even though BP volunteered to do it).
Indeed, BP has had no better friend than Fox News (no offense to Rep. Barton). Every move the administration has made to hold the oil company accountable has been met with derision from the conservative network. Glenn Beck likened the congressional hearings into the oil spill to the Salem witch trials and the McCarthy hearings. Fox Business host Stuart Varney claimed the administration is "demonizing" BP and trying to "seize its assets."
The question that remains is: Why? Why would Fox News so vociferously and ardently defend BP when even Republicans were fighting to get in front of microphones to denounce Rep. Barton's apology and the company's approval rating is, quite literally, somewhere between O.J. Simpson and Saddam Hussein? It's the same reason they attacked Obama when he sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and the same reason they attacked him for asking that the country pray for the Gulf coast. It doesn't matter what Obama does, Fox News will automatically gainsay it. It doesn't matter if they make no sense, look foolish, or wildly contradict themselves -- if Obama does it, it's wrong. He could replace Teddy Roosevelt's face on Mount Rushmore with Ronald Reagan's and they'd attack him for desecrating an American landmark.
But such things are to be expected from the self-proclaimed "voice of opposition."
Conservative media uses McChrystal controversy to label Obama "anti-American," anti-military
The week's big story came when Rolling Stone published an article quoting Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his aides making unflattering remarks about the Obama administration and its allies. The remarks not only relieved McChrystal of a job, it also gave the conservative media the opportunity to bash Obama as anti-military and dredge up old falsehoods.
Limbaugh, who said "what McChrystal has done here is not defensible," wondered how people like McChrystal can serve under someone like "community organizer" Obama, who has an "open disdain" for the military. Limbaugh added that Obama hopes for military defeat.
Beck, who said McChrystal "probably should" be fired, proclaimed that "we're intentionally having our troops very busy" and "break[ing] the spirit of our military." Last weekend, Beck endorsed the idea of a "private army" taking charge of the war in Afghanistan, with Beck specifically claiming that there are "private individuals that could probably take care of things in Afghanistan better."
Gretchen Carlson, meanwhile, twisted McChrystal's interview to falsely suggest that Obama doesn't support the Afghanistan effort. In Carlson's view, the decision over whether to fire McChrystal was so heavy that it compares to her own duties hosting a cable TV morning show (much to Jon Stewart's amusement).
Following Obama's announcement that Gen. David Petraeus would replace McChrystal, the usual cast of characters went into Obama attack mode. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Monica Crowley accused Obama of being thin-skinned. Hannity, Fox & Friends, Michelle Malkin and Clear Channel radio host Jim Quinn distorted comments Obama made during Senate hearings in 2007 to falsely accuse him of "chastising" and "excoriating" David Petraeus. Limbaugh falsely accused Obama of not voting to condemn a Gen. "Betray Us" ad from several years ago.
Finally, radio host Michael Savage said the "Marxist, backstabbing anti-American" Obama made "the worst decision" because he "replaced a fighter with a fainter."
Only two months until Glenn Beck brings the civil rights movement "back to its conservative white roots"
This week, when Glenn Beck wasn't busy smearing President Obama and George Soros with blatantly false and absurd conspiracy theories or devoting entire shows to defending Joe McCarthy's legacy, he was promoting his upcoming 8-28 rally in Washington, D.C.
After Beck discovered that he accidentally scheduled the rally on the 60th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, he saw a great opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime: delusional self-promotion.
According to Beck, his rally's scheduling was "almost divine providence" because King's legacy has been "corrupted." As a result, Beck has repeatedly characterized his rally as a way to "reclaim the civil rights movement," saying things like "we were the people that did it in the first place." As usual, every Beck story needs a villain, and he has blamed the "distortion" of the civil rights movement on -- you guessed it -- "progressives." As Stephen Colbert put it: "Finally, someone is bringing Martin Luther King's movement back to its conservative white roots"
As reported by Media Matters' Will Bunch, top U.S. civil rights leaders have accused Beck of "hijacking" King's legacy, and have planned a counter-rally the same day as Beck's.
According to Beck, his rally "will be remembered in American history as the turning point," and "is going to be one for the history books," because it will be seen in 100 or 200 years as the "moment America turned the corner."
Based on the way Beck has promoted the rally, hopefully this "turning point" will be the moment everyone in the country stopped taking Beck seriously
There is a disaster unfolding in America. The Gulf coast has become the scene of one of the greatest tragedies this country has ever seen. Innocent, hard-working people who were guilty of nothing except trying to earn their keep are up against it, their lives and livelihoods threatened by a growing, toxic mess that -- with a malignance that seems almost purposeful -- destroys everything it touches.
Oh, and there's an oil spill too.
That, of course, is the posture Fox News has taken towards the Gulf oil disaster, having decided that the real threat to the nation is not the millions of gallons of oil floating on and under the Gulf of Mexico but, rather, the Obama administration's reaction to the disaster and efforts to hold the culpable parties responsible. And, as you'd expect, such a ridiculous position requires some wild fractures of the truth and an almost complete abandonment of common sense.
The crux of the Fox News position is that the White House is simultaneously doing too much and not enough. If you've tuned in to the Murdoch network at any point over the past couple of months, you've probably seen the likes of Rudy Giuliani complaining that the Obama administration waited 50 days or so before offering any sort of response to the oil spill. America's perpetually confused mayor was off by about 49 days -- the Coast Guard was on the scene immediately and the president dispatched officials to the region the day after BP's rig exploded. None of those easily verifiably facts were enough to stymie the conspiracy theory, articulated by Fox News' Eric Bolling, that Obama "let it leak so he could renege on his promise to ... allow some offshore drilling."
Those Fox Newsers who were magnanimous enough to acknowledge that the White House was, in fact, responding to the disaster concocted a series of lies to claim that they were dragging their feet. Did the administration turn down foreign assistance for the clean up effort? Did the White House unreasonably delay the purchase of Maine oil booms? Did Obama dally in approving sand berm construction? The answer to each of these questions is "no," but on Fox News they were presented as the absolute truth.
The flip side to the administration's allegedly criminal neglect was their allegedly criminal efforts to hold BP accountable for the disaster. Echoing Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) now-infamous apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward over the deal the administration struck with BP to establish a $20 billion escrow fund to pay for spill-related damages, Fox News personalities rushed to declare the fund a "shakedown" and a "stickup." Others declared it was unconstitutional for the government to force BP to set up the account (even though BP volunteered to do it).
Indeed, BP has had no better friend than Fox News (no offense to Rep. Barton). Every move the administration has made to hold the oil company accountable has been met with derision from the conservative network. Glenn Beck likened the congressional hearings into the oil spill to the Salem witch trials and the McCarthy hearings. Fox Business host Stuart Varney claimed the administration is "demonizing" BP and trying to "seize its assets."
The question that remains is: Why? Why would Fox News so vociferously and ardently defend BP when even Republicans were fighting to get in front of microphones to denounce Rep. Barton's apology and the company's approval rating is, quite literally, somewhere between O.J. Simpson and Saddam Hussein? It's the same reason they attacked Obama when he sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and the same reason they attacked him for asking that the country pray for the Gulf coast. It doesn't matter what Obama does, Fox News will automatically gainsay it. It doesn't matter if they make no sense, look foolish, or wildly contradict themselves -- if Obama does it, it's wrong. He could replace Teddy Roosevelt's face on Mount Rushmore with Ronald Reagan's and they'd attack him for desecrating an American landmark.
But such things are to be expected from the self-proclaimed "voice of opposition."
Conservative media uses McChrystal controversy to label Obama "anti-American," anti-military
The week's big story came when Rolling Stone published an article quoting Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his aides making unflattering remarks about the Obama administration and its allies. The remarks not only relieved McChrystal of a job, it also gave the conservative media the opportunity to bash Obama as anti-military and dredge up old falsehoods.
Limbaugh, who said "what McChrystal has done here is not defensible," wondered how people like McChrystal can serve under someone like "community organizer" Obama, who has an "open disdain" for the military. Limbaugh added that Obama hopes for military defeat.
Beck, who said McChrystal "probably should" be fired, proclaimed that "we're intentionally having our troops very busy" and "break[ing] the spirit of our military." Last weekend, Beck endorsed the idea of a "private army" taking charge of the war in Afghanistan, with Beck specifically claiming that there are "private individuals that could probably take care of things in Afghanistan better."
Gretchen Carlson, meanwhile, twisted McChrystal's interview to falsely suggest that Obama doesn't support the Afghanistan effort. In Carlson's view, the decision over whether to fire McChrystal was so heavy that it compares to her own duties hosting a cable TV morning show (much to Jon Stewart's amusement).
Following Obama's announcement that Gen. David Petraeus would replace McChrystal, the usual cast of characters went into Obama attack mode. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Monica Crowley accused Obama of being thin-skinned. Hannity, Fox & Friends, Michelle Malkin and Clear Channel radio host Jim Quinn distorted comments Obama made during Senate hearings in 2007 to falsely accuse him of "chastising" and "excoriating" David Petraeus. Limbaugh falsely accused Obama of not voting to condemn a Gen. "Betray Us" ad from several years ago.
Finally, radio host Michael Savage said the "Marxist, backstabbing anti-American" Obama made "the worst decision" because he "replaced a fighter with a fainter."
Only two months until Glenn Beck brings the civil rights movement "back to its conservative white roots"
This week, when Glenn Beck wasn't busy smearing President Obama and George Soros with blatantly false and absurd conspiracy theories or devoting entire shows to defending Joe McCarthy's legacy, he was promoting his upcoming 8-28 rally in Washington, D.C.
After Beck discovered that he accidentally scheduled the rally on the 60th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, he saw a great opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime: delusional self-promotion.
According to Beck, his rally's scheduling was "almost divine providence" because King's legacy has been "corrupted." As a result, Beck has repeatedly characterized his rally as a way to "reclaim the civil rights movement," saying things like "we were the people that did it in the first place." As usual, every Beck story needs a villain, and he has blamed the "distortion" of the civil rights movement on -- you guessed it -- "progressives." As Stephen Colbert put it: "Finally, someone is bringing Martin Luther King's movement back to its conservative white roots"
As reported by Media Matters' Will Bunch, top U.S. civil rights leaders have accused Beck of "hijacking" King's legacy, and have planned a counter-rally the same day as Beck's.
According to Beck, his rally "will be remembered in American history as the turning point," and "is going to be one for the history books," because it will be seen in 100 or 200 years as the "moment America turned the corner."
Based on the way Beck has promoted the rally, hopefully this "turning point" will be the moment everyone in the country stopped taking Beck seriously
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Don't use my name
Don't use my name: The anonymity game Washington Post
You've heard the pledges before: We're going to swear off the stuff, really we are. Or at least -- hic! -- reduce our consumption.
But journalists seem more addicted than ever to the elixir of anonymous sources. I'd be fine with unnamed sources who'd tell us what was really going on at the Minerals Management Agency while oil companies were allowed to write their own ticket with no real contingency plans. You know, people who might lose their jobs if they blew the whistle on wrongdoing -- the kind of folks for whom the shield of anonymity was intended.
For day-to-day political potshots, though, it's really become a kind of free pass: Here, say something snarky about someone who ticks you off and we'll publish it.
The latest example -- and this instantly hit the cable/talk radio circuit -- was the unnamed White House aide who took a swipe at the unions who backed Blanche Lincoln's primary opponent before her victory. "Organized labor," said the "senior White House official" who called Politico, "just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise."
Now you could say the White House ought to be above such pettiness. But if journalists simply said no -- no name, no blind quote -- such potshots wouldn't happen. Hey, if political antagonists want to poke each other in the eye, be my guest -- but don't depend on reporters to hide your identity.
Salon's Glenn Greenwald uses the incident to tee off on the D.C. press corps:
"Corruption and dishonesty are among the Washington vices which receive substantial attention, but cowardice is often overlooked, despite how pervasive it is. The news cycle of the last two days has been driven by an attack on organized labor from a 'senior White House official' who was willing to express these views only while hiding behind the fetal wall of anonymity extended by Politico. . . .
"That there is no remote journalistic justification for granting anonymity for these kinds of catty comments is self-evident, but that's not worth discussing, since the Drudgeified Politico has long ago established that they operate without any ethical constraints of any kind when it comes to such matters. The only anonymity standard Politico has is this: we grant it automatically the minute someone in power wants it (though on some level, in a warped sort of way, that's almost more admirable than what the NYT and Post do: pretend that they have strict anonymity standards while basically handing it out as promiscuously as Politico does).
"But what is striking is how often top White House officials -- who are among the most politically powerful people in the country -- are willing to inject views into the public discourse only if they can be assured that they will never be accountable for what they say. That is just unadulterated cowardice."
But some of us just make it too easy for them.
Separately, Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander chastises the paper for excessive use of anonymity:
"Last month, a story about conflicts between parents and childless adults began with an anecdote about an unleashed puppy pestering a toddler in a District park. After the child's father complained, the dog's owner told The Post that parents of children can be 'tyrants' and she urged them to keep their kids inside the park's fenced-in play area. 'I think children are fine,' she was quoted as saying, but 'I don't think they own everything.'
"For this, The Post identified the woman only as Linda, a veteran journalist, 'because she didn't want to be seen as hostile to children.'. . . .
"Too often it seems The Post grants anonymity at the drop of a hat. In a recent politics story, a Democratic strategist was afforded anonymity so he could be 'candid.' In April, a source was granted anonymity for an inoffensive quote 'because he is reluctant to have his name in the paper.'
"Late last year, a Post story on then-White House social secretary Desir?e Rogers quoted a friend who was granted anonymity 'in order not to offend.' Another source in the story was given anonymity 'so as not to upset' Rogers."
Well, I'm upset. But nothing is going to change until news organizations pay a price for this sort of thing.
Video confrontation
I felt an initial twinge of sympathy for Rep. Bob Etheridge in the wake of the viral video that has forced him to apologize.
The North Carolina Democrat is walking down the street when a couple of young men, one armed with a video camera, start asking him questions and refuse to say who they are or where they're from.
But Etheridge completely and totally overreacts, grabbing one man's arm and then the back of his neck, all while the camera is rolling. It looked absolutely awful, as he now recognizes:
"I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. . . . No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response."
Andrew Breitbart's Big Government site -- famous for the ACORN sting -- was the first to post the video, while concluding that "this guy is a moron" who violated assault laws.
But one weird thing remains: How come the "students" involved haven't surfaced and identified themselves? Was Breitbart's operation involved? Not that that would let Etheridge off the hook, but it'd be fascinating to know who targeted him.
The Greene riddle
It's still a head-scratcher in South Carolina.
As National Review's Jim Geraghty asks, "How the heck did Alvin Greene, an unemployed veteran who lives with his parents and who had no discernable campaign activity, not only win the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary, but win by a wide margin?
"So unexpected is this result that official Washington is shaking off its stunned shock and throwing a mild tantrum. . . .
"Does anyone actually want to stake his reputation on an accusation of a vast conspiracy to commit ballot fraud, for the sole purpose of getting Alvin Greene instead of Vic Rawl on the ballot against Jim DeMint?. . . .
"Greene's fairy-tale mystery victory is one of the most joyfully refreshing developments in modern politics, because it subversively suggests that everything we think we know about campaigns, elections, and democracy itself might be completely wrong. The voters may ignore almost everything we have been conditioned to consider important metrics in modern campaigning. Greene managed a runaway victory without television or radio advertising, a website, voter contact lists, any identified campaign staff, any yard signs, any bumper stickers, any get-out-the-vote operations -- hell, as far as anyone can tell, Greene has no discernable positions or platform!"
And he's terrible at giving interviews, too. Meanwhile, Fox's Shep Smith interviews Camille McCoy, a 19-year-old South Carolina student who, according to charges, was approached by Greene in a school library. Smith asks her to explain what Greene showed her "without skeeving us out."
"It was woman-on-man porn," she says. "I told him it was offensive and he needed to leave. He laughed, and he said, Let's go to your room right now. . . . I was shocked and freaked out and scared."
In the state's other big race, the NYT runs a generally favorable profile of Nikki Haley, noting that her given name is Nimrata Nikki Randhawa and that she and her husband were married in two ceremonies, one Methodist and one Sikh. She is now an avowed Christian and none of that seems to matter in the race.
Push comes to shove
The NYT discovers that Meg Whitman may have been a little too hands-on as a chief executive:
"In June 2007, an eBay employee claimed that Ms. Whitman became angry and forcefully pushed her in an executive conference room at eBay's headquarters, according to multiple former eBay employees with knowledge of the incident. . . .
"The employee, Young Mi Kim, was preparing Ms. Whitman for a news media interview that day. . . . Two of the former employees said the company paid a six-figure financial settlement to Ms. Kim, which one of them characterized as 'around $200,000.' "
That, by the way, strikes me as an appropriate use of unnamed sources.
Watered-down tea
Republican candidates often run to the right in primaries and tack to the center in the general; Democrats do the opposite. But are tea partyers now watering down their strong brand? Huffington Post's Sam Stein finds some examples:
"The moderation of the Tea Party seems to have begun, as a number of the movement's high-profile candidates transition from primary battles to general election campaigns.
"On Monday morning, Nevada Republican Senate candidate Shar[r]on Angle told 'Fox and Friends' that, contrary to popular belief, she does not in fact want Social Security to be privatized. '[T]hat's nonsense,' said Angle. . . .
"Angle, as pointed out by Jon Ralston, the dean of the Nevada political press corps, has been fairly unapologetic in the past about her desire to see Social Security privatized. At one point, she said the program itself is 'hard to justify.' That she's now tempering that position illustrates the clear sense among the national Republican establishment that she needs to moderate her platform if she stands a chance of beating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the fall."
As for Rand Paul, he "has toned down earlier remarks saying that the government was being too rough on BP in the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf, telling a local Kentucky radio station that the federal regulations in place 'apparently wasn't enough.' "
Harry Reid just aired his first attack ad, with scary music and an ominous-sounding female narrator saying, "Shockingly, Sharron Angle wants to wipe out Social Security."
President and the press
President Obama started his two-day swing through the Gulf on Monday, and he delivers his big Oval Office speech Tuesday night. At the Nation, Ari Melber offers some advice to a chief executive who regularly complains about television's role in the 24/7 news cycle:
"Obama has not only chosen to empower TV-driven news coverage of his administration, he has done so at the cost of access for print and alternative media. The White House arranges far more TV interviews for the president than print interviews. (The line about performing for cable shows came during an interview with the 'Today Show.') The decrease in official press conferences further limits access for print reporters, since it is the only venue for many print reporters to ever have a shot at questioning the president. And during one of the few press conferences that Obama has held as president, he made the highly unusual choice of refusing to take a single question from the four national newspapers (The Times, Journal, Washington Post and USA Today.). . . .
"Obama is rightly annoyed by the made-for-TV quality of oil spill criticism -- the main character needs to show more anger in this scene -- but instead of complaining on TV about TV, he should try changing the channel. He could hold more press conferences, and invite not only White House reporters, but also environmental experts for a deeper exchange on the crisis."
Sure, but I've also read plenty of print journalists saying Obama needs to show more emotion in the oil crisis. In fact, when Roger Simon asked how he could connect with people on "emotional levels," the president said: "I want to be absolutely clear that part of leadership always involves being able to capture people's imaginations, their sense of hope, their sense of possibility, being able to move people to do things they didn't think they could do. The irony, of course, is, is that the rap on me before I got to office was that that's all I could do -- right?"
Meanwhile, internal BP e-mails continue to reveal the company's cost-cutting measures on the ill-fated well, such as this engineer's note shortly before the explosion: "This has been nightmare well which has everyone all over the place."
Reality bites
This just turned my stomach, when you stop to think that a 16-year-old girl's life was at stake:
"The father of teen sailor Abby Sunderland told the New York Post that he's broke and had signed a contract to do a reality show, "Adventures in Sunderland," about his family of daredevil kids weeks after she set off on her doomed and dangerous solo sail around the globe.
"Laurence Sunderland, a sailing instructor who lives in the middle-class Los Angeles suburb of Thousand Oaks with his pregnant wife and seven kids, opened their home to film crews four months ago."
Is there anything people won't do to get on television? And unlike the Balloon Boy hoax, young Abby actually attempted to sail around the world.
Meet the men
The Sunday talk shows -- although one is hosted by a woman and a second is about to be -- remain heavily male when it comes to the guest lineups.
"Even as women have vaulted to be House speaker and hold a host of other influential positions on Capitol Hill, female lawmakers continue to be under-represented as guests on the Sunday shows," Politico reports.
"According to research by American University's Women & Politics Institute, female lawmakers have composed 13.5 percent of the total Sunday show appearances by all representatives and senators this year.
"The suggestion that the Sunday shows are less hospitable to women has prompted a debate over who's to blame among network producers, Capitol Hill political operatives and women's advocates."
Here's what's interesting: Producers say some female members of Congress, led by Nancy Pelosi, make themselves difficult to book or are busy on weekends, adding to the imbalance.
Today's Tiger
Is this report in Britain's Sun true? Who knows?
"Troubled Tiger Woods fathered a secret love child, a new TV documentary claims this week.
"A journalist who helped the golfer hide affairs says he knows someone who has full details of the girl -- and DNA evidence."
Tiger is troubled in more ways than one: He needs to work on his swing after failing to make the cut in his last tournament.
Howard Kurtz also works for CNN and hosts its weekly media program, "Reliable Sources."
You've heard the pledges before: We're going to swear off the stuff, really we are. Or at least -- hic! -- reduce our consumption.
But journalists seem more addicted than ever to the elixir of anonymous sources. I'd be fine with unnamed sources who'd tell us what was really going on at the Minerals Management Agency while oil companies were allowed to write their own ticket with no real contingency plans. You know, people who might lose their jobs if they blew the whistle on wrongdoing -- the kind of folks for whom the shield of anonymity was intended.
For day-to-day political potshots, though, it's really become a kind of free pass: Here, say something snarky about someone who ticks you off and we'll publish it.
The latest example -- and this instantly hit the cable/talk radio circuit -- was the unnamed White House aide who took a swipe at the unions who backed Blanche Lincoln's primary opponent before her victory. "Organized labor," said the "senior White House official" who called Politico, "just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise."
Now you could say the White House ought to be above such pettiness. But if journalists simply said no -- no name, no blind quote -- such potshots wouldn't happen. Hey, if political antagonists want to poke each other in the eye, be my guest -- but don't depend on reporters to hide your identity.
Salon's Glenn Greenwald uses the incident to tee off on the D.C. press corps:
"Corruption and dishonesty are among the Washington vices which receive substantial attention, but cowardice is often overlooked, despite how pervasive it is. The news cycle of the last two days has been driven by an attack on organized labor from a 'senior White House official' who was willing to express these views only while hiding behind the fetal wall of anonymity extended by Politico. . . .
"That there is no remote journalistic justification for granting anonymity for these kinds of catty comments is self-evident, but that's not worth discussing, since the Drudgeified Politico has long ago established that they operate without any ethical constraints of any kind when it comes to such matters. The only anonymity standard Politico has is this: we grant it automatically the minute someone in power wants it (though on some level, in a warped sort of way, that's almost more admirable than what the NYT and Post do: pretend that they have strict anonymity standards while basically handing it out as promiscuously as Politico does).
"But what is striking is how often top White House officials -- who are among the most politically powerful people in the country -- are willing to inject views into the public discourse only if they can be assured that they will never be accountable for what they say. That is just unadulterated cowardice."
But some of us just make it too easy for them.
Separately, Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander chastises the paper for excessive use of anonymity:
"Last month, a story about conflicts between parents and childless adults began with an anecdote about an unleashed puppy pestering a toddler in a District park. After the child's father complained, the dog's owner told The Post that parents of children can be 'tyrants' and she urged them to keep their kids inside the park's fenced-in play area. 'I think children are fine,' she was quoted as saying, but 'I don't think they own everything.'
"For this, The Post identified the woman only as Linda, a veteran journalist, 'because she didn't want to be seen as hostile to children.'. . . .
"Too often it seems The Post grants anonymity at the drop of a hat. In a recent politics story, a Democratic strategist was afforded anonymity so he could be 'candid.' In April, a source was granted anonymity for an inoffensive quote 'because he is reluctant to have his name in the paper.'
"Late last year, a Post story on then-White House social secretary Desir?e Rogers quoted a friend who was granted anonymity 'in order not to offend.' Another source in the story was given anonymity 'so as not to upset' Rogers."
Well, I'm upset. But nothing is going to change until news organizations pay a price for this sort of thing.
Video confrontation
I felt an initial twinge of sympathy for Rep. Bob Etheridge in the wake of the viral video that has forced him to apologize.
The North Carolina Democrat is walking down the street when a couple of young men, one armed with a video camera, start asking him questions and refuse to say who they are or where they're from.
But Etheridge completely and totally overreacts, grabbing one man's arm and then the back of his neck, all while the camera is rolling. It looked absolutely awful, as he now recognizes:
"I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. . . . No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response."
Andrew Breitbart's Big Government site -- famous for the ACORN sting -- was the first to post the video, while concluding that "this guy is a moron" who violated assault laws.
But one weird thing remains: How come the "students" involved haven't surfaced and identified themselves? Was Breitbart's operation involved? Not that that would let Etheridge off the hook, but it'd be fascinating to know who targeted him.
The Greene riddle
It's still a head-scratcher in South Carolina.
As National Review's Jim Geraghty asks, "How the heck did Alvin Greene, an unemployed veteran who lives with his parents and who had no discernable campaign activity, not only win the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary, but win by a wide margin?
"So unexpected is this result that official Washington is shaking off its stunned shock and throwing a mild tantrum. . . .
"Does anyone actually want to stake his reputation on an accusation of a vast conspiracy to commit ballot fraud, for the sole purpose of getting Alvin Greene instead of Vic Rawl on the ballot against Jim DeMint?. . . .
"Greene's fairy-tale mystery victory is one of the most joyfully refreshing developments in modern politics, because it subversively suggests that everything we think we know about campaigns, elections, and democracy itself might be completely wrong. The voters may ignore almost everything we have been conditioned to consider important metrics in modern campaigning. Greene managed a runaway victory without television or radio advertising, a website, voter contact lists, any identified campaign staff, any yard signs, any bumper stickers, any get-out-the-vote operations -- hell, as far as anyone can tell, Greene has no discernable positions or platform!"
And he's terrible at giving interviews, too. Meanwhile, Fox's Shep Smith interviews Camille McCoy, a 19-year-old South Carolina student who, according to charges, was approached by Greene in a school library. Smith asks her to explain what Greene showed her "without skeeving us out."
"It was woman-on-man porn," she says. "I told him it was offensive and he needed to leave. He laughed, and he said, Let's go to your room right now. . . . I was shocked and freaked out and scared."
In the state's other big race, the NYT runs a generally favorable profile of Nikki Haley, noting that her given name is Nimrata Nikki Randhawa and that she and her husband were married in two ceremonies, one Methodist and one Sikh. She is now an avowed Christian and none of that seems to matter in the race.
Push comes to shove
The NYT discovers that Meg Whitman may have been a little too hands-on as a chief executive:
"In June 2007, an eBay employee claimed that Ms. Whitman became angry and forcefully pushed her in an executive conference room at eBay's headquarters, according to multiple former eBay employees with knowledge of the incident. . . .
"The employee, Young Mi Kim, was preparing Ms. Whitman for a news media interview that day. . . . Two of the former employees said the company paid a six-figure financial settlement to Ms. Kim, which one of them characterized as 'around $200,000.' "
That, by the way, strikes me as an appropriate use of unnamed sources.
Watered-down tea
Republican candidates often run to the right in primaries and tack to the center in the general; Democrats do the opposite. But are tea partyers now watering down their strong brand? Huffington Post's Sam Stein finds some examples:
"The moderation of the Tea Party seems to have begun, as a number of the movement's high-profile candidates transition from primary battles to general election campaigns.
"On Monday morning, Nevada Republican Senate candidate Shar[r]on Angle told 'Fox and Friends' that, contrary to popular belief, she does not in fact want Social Security to be privatized. '[T]hat's nonsense,' said Angle. . . .
"Angle, as pointed out by Jon Ralston, the dean of the Nevada political press corps, has been fairly unapologetic in the past about her desire to see Social Security privatized. At one point, she said the program itself is 'hard to justify.' That she's now tempering that position illustrates the clear sense among the national Republican establishment that she needs to moderate her platform if she stands a chance of beating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the fall."
As for Rand Paul, he "has toned down earlier remarks saying that the government was being too rough on BP in the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf, telling a local Kentucky radio station that the federal regulations in place 'apparently wasn't enough.' "
Harry Reid just aired his first attack ad, with scary music and an ominous-sounding female narrator saying, "Shockingly, Sharron Angle wants to wipe out Social Security."
President and the press
President Obama started his two-day swing through the Gulf on Monday, and he delivers his big Oval Office speech Tuesday night. At the Nation, Ari Melber offers some advice to a chief executive who regularly complains about television's role in the 24/7 news cycle:
"Obama has not only chosen to empower TV-driven news coverage of his administration, he has done so at the cost of access for print and alternative media. The White House arranges far more TV interviews for the president than print interviews. (The line about performing for cable shows came during an interview with the 'Today Show.') The decrease in official press conferences further limits access for print reporters, since it is the only venue for many print reporters to ever have a shot at questioning the president. And during one of the few press conferences that Obama has held as president, he made the highly unusual choice of refusing to take a single question from the four national newspapers (The Times, Journal, Washington Post and USA Today.). . . .
"Obama is rightly annoyed by the made-for-TV quality of oil spill criticism -- the main character needs to show more anger in this scene -- but instead of complaining on TV about TV, he should try changing the channel. He could hold more press conferences, and invite not only White House reporters, but also environmental experts for a deeper exchange on the crisis."
Sure, but I've also read plenty of print journalists saying Obama needs to show more emotion in the oil crisis. In fact, when Roger Simon asked how he could connect with people on "emotional levels," the president said: "I want to be absolutely clear that part of leadership always involves being able to capture people's imaginations, their sense of hope, their sense of possibility, being able to move people to do things they didn't think they could do. The irony, of course, is, is that the rap on me before I got to office was that that's all I could do -- right?"
Meanwhile, internal BP e-mails continue to reveal the company's cost-cutting measures on the ill-fated well, such as this engineer's note shortly before the explosion: "This has been nightmare well which has everyone all over the place."
Reality bites
This just turned my stomach, when you stop to think that a 16-year-old girl's life was at stake:
"The father of teen sailor Abby Sunderland told the New York Post that he's broke and had signed a contract to do a reality show, "Adventures in Sunderland," about his family of daredevil kids weeks after she set off on her doomed and dangerous solo sail around the globe.
"Laurence Sunderland, a sailing instructor who lives in the middle-class Los Angeles suburb of Thousand Oaks with his pregnant wife and seven kids, opened their home to film crews four months ago."
Is there anything people won't do to get on television? And unlike the Balloon Boy hoax, young Abby actually attempted to sail around the world.
Meet the men
The Sunday talk shows -- although one is hosted by a woman and a second is about to be -- remain heavily male when it comes to the guest lineups.
"Even as women have vaulted to be House speaker and hold a host of other influential positions on Capitol Hill, female lawmakers continue to be under-represented as guests on the Sunday shows," Politico reports.
"According to research by American University's Women & Politics Institute, female lawmakers have composed 13.5 percent of the total Sunday show appearances by all representatives and senators this year.
"The suggestion that the Sunday shows are less hospitable to women has prompted a debate over who's to blame among network producers, Capitol Hill political operatives and women's advocates."
Here's what's interesting: Producers say some female members of Congress, led by Nancy Pelosi, make themselves difficult to book or are busy on weekends, adding to the imbalance.
Today's Tiger
Is this report in Britain's Sun true? Who knows?
"Troubled Tiger Woods fathered a secret love child, a new TV documentary claims this week.
"A journalist who helped the golfer hide affairs says he knows someone who has full details of the girl -- and DNA evidence."
Tiger is troubled in more ways than one: He needs to work on his swing after failing to make the cut in his last tournament.
Howard Kurtz also works for CNN and hosts its weekly media program, "Reliable Sources."
Sunday, June 13, 2010
a push toward polarization On cable TV and talk radio
Michael Smerconish
Nationally syndicated radio host and columnist and an MSNBC contributor.
Any conversation about political polarization would be incomplete without a look at the media's role in shaping opinions. From my view on the front lines, I have seen a rapid escalation of extreme dialogue -- sadly, something sure to guarantee high ratings. Indeed, Campbell Brown's departure from her CNN show last month marks another tombstone in the graveyard of moderate, thoughtful analysis.
Why does this matter? I'd argue that the climate in Washington is being shaped by an artificial presentation of attitudes on cable TV and talk radio. To view and to listen is to become convinced that there are only two, diametrically opposed philosophical approaches to the issues. And yet, working daily in both mediums, I often think that the only people I meet who see the world entirely through liberal or conservative lenses are the hosts with whom I rub shoulders.
Buying gas or groceries or attending back-to-school nights, I speak to people for whom the issues are a mixed bag; they are liberal on some, conservative on others, middle of the road on the rest. But politicians don't take their cues from those people. No, politicians emulate the world of punditry.
Opinions from the middle are underrepresented, even shunned, in the modern debate. Consider: In May 2008, a few weeks after Pennsylvania's presidential primary, I was scheduled to appear on CNN's "Larry King Live." During the customary pre-interview with a program producer, I gave a summation of how I saw the presidential race. The producer was satisfied. At the conclusion of our chat, I asked how I would be identified.
"As a John McCain supporter," I was told.
"But I'm not sure I will vote for McCain," I responded.
Silence.
The producer asked whether CNN could identify me as a conservative. "Well, if someone who supports harsh interrogation, thinks we should be out of Iraq but in Pakistan, doesn't care much if two guys hook up, and believes we should legalize pot and prostitution is conservative, fine," I replied.
More silence.
Why not just introduce me as a radio host, columnist and author, I asked. I was told to await a call-back to see whether I was still needed. (Ultimately, I did appear on the program, under the heading of "talk-radio host, columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News and Philadelphia Inquirer. He is a Republican.")
Another time, a Fox News producer invited me to appear on a program to discuss then-candidate Barack Obama. I was told they were "looking for someone who would say he's cocky and that his cockiness will hurt him, if not in the primary, definitely in the general election against McCain." I declined. A few hours later, the same producer made a new pitch: "What about a debate off the top of the show on whether or not Hillary is trustworthy? We have someone who says she is and we're looking for someone who says she isn't."
The message of both episodes is clear: There is no room for nuance. Either you offer a consistent (possibly artificial) ideological view or you often don't get a say.
Unfortunately, this approach is rewarded with ratings, because ratings are driven by passion, not universal appeal or general acceptance. While the most recent polling and voter registration data suggest that political power lies in the middle, it remains largely untapped because it lacks the fervor of the extremes. This also explains the lack of loyalty by centrists for media personalities such as Campbell Brown, unlike the devotion the far right and left have for their own torch-bearers. The more doctrinaire the viewpoint, the better the odds it will be heard.
Brown abandoned her 8 p.m. program because, in her words, "not enough people want to watch." "The 8 p.m. hour in cable news world is currently driven by the indomitable Bill O'Reilly, Nancy Grace and Keith Olbermann," she said. "Shedding my own journalistic skin to try to inhabit the kind of persona that might co-exist in that lineup is simply impossible for me."
Viewers and listeners have become conditioned to expect -- and accept -- only perspectives that line up on one side of the aisle. Interestingly, while the audience hears the extremes, the populace appears headed in a different direction. A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll last month found that more respondents deemed their approach to issues as "moderate" (37 percent) than any other classification (very liberal, somewhat liberal, very conservative or somewhat conservative). Nevertheless, politicians, keyed up by on-camera conflict and forced into constant campaign mode by the 24-7 news cycle, strive to placate the most reliable voters, those who vote in primaries, tend to be the most polarized and make the most contributions. Ask South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson (R-"You lie!") or Florida Rep. Alan Grayson (D-"Die quickly") how their fundraising went in the quarters after their outlandish outbursts regarding the president's and the Republicans' respective health-care plans.
No wonder that, when elected, many treat their legislative colleagues the way they would a pundit on a split screen. Collegiality used to be commonplace. Now it's political kryptonite.
The endangered part of the political spectrum is now the middle. Centrists such as Republican New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava get ridiculed as weak or lacking in principle. Sen. Arlen Specter's decisive loss in Pennsylvania and Sen. John McCain's fight for his political life in Arizona are signs of the vulnerability of nonideologues running in primaries that cater to the passions at the ends of the spectrum.
All of which leaves more elected officials beholden to the fringe elements of their parties, which in turn means less gets done. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is robbing our televisions and radios of the substantive dialogue the country desperately needs, while leaving our politics a petty and unproductive mess.
Nationally syndicated radio host and columnist and an MSNBC contributor.
Any conversation about political polarization would be incomplete without a look at the media's role in shaping opinions. From my view on the front lines, I have seen a rapid escalation of extreme dialogue -- sadly, something sure to guarantee high ratings. Indeed, Campbell Brown's departure from her CNN show last month marks another tombstone in the graveyard of moderate, thoughtful analysis.
Why does this matter? I'd argue that the climate in Washington is being shaped by an artificial presentation of attitudes on cable TV and talk radio. To view and to listen is to become convinced that there are only two, diametrically opposed philosophical approaches to the issues. And yet, working daily in both mediums, I often think that the only people I meet who see the world entirely through liberal or conservative lenses are the hosts with whom I rub shoulders.
Buying gas or groceries or attending back-to-school nights, I speak to people for whom the issues are a mixed bag; they are liberal on some, conservative on others, middle of the road on the rest. But politicians don't take their cues from those people. No, politicians emulate the world of punditry.
Opinions from the middle are underrepresented, even shunned, in the modern debate. Consider: In May 2008, a few weeks after Pennsylvania's presidential primary, I was scheduled to appear on CNN's "Larry King Live." During the customary pre-interview with a program producer, I gave a summation of how I saw the presidential race. The producer was satisfied. At the conclusion of our chat, I asked how I would be identified.
"As a John McCain supporter," I was told.
"But I'm not sure I will vote for McCain," I responded.
Silence.
The producer asked whether CNN could identify me as a conservative. "Well, if someone who supports harsh interrogation, thinks we should be out of Iraq but in Pakistan, doesn't care much if two guys hook up, and believes we should legalize pot and prostitution is conservative, fine," I replied.
More silence.
Why not just introduce me as a radio host, columnist and author, I asked. I was told to await a call-back to see whether I was still needed. (Ultimately, I did appear on the program, under the heading of "talk-radio host, columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News and Philadelphia Inquirer. He is a Republican.")
Another time, a Fox News producer invited me to appear on a program to discuss then-candidate Barack Obama. I was told they were "looking for someone who would say he's cocky and that his cockiness will hurt him, if not in the primary, definitely in the general election against McCain." I declined. A few hours later, the same producer made a new pitch: "What about a debate off the top of the show on whether or not Hillary is trustworthy? We have someone who says she is and we're looking for someone who says she isn't."
The message of both episodes is clear: There is no room for nuance. Either you offer a consistent (possibly artificial) ideological view or you often don't get a say.
Unfortunately, this approach is rewarded with ratings, because ratings are driven by passion, not universal appeal or general acceptance. While the most recent polling and voter registration data suggest that political power lies in the middle, it remains largely untapped because it lacks the fervor of the extremes. This also explains the lack of loyalty by centrists for media personalities such as Campbell Brown, unlike the devotion the far right and left have for their own torch-bearers. The more doctrinaire the viewpoint, the better the odds it will be heard.
Brown abandoned her 8 p.m. program because, in her words, "not enough people want to watch." "The 8 p.m. hour in cable news world is currently driven by the indomitable Bill O'Reilly, Nancy Grace and Keith Olbermann," she said. "Shedding my own journalistic skin to try to inhabit the kind of persona that might co-exist in that lineup is simply impossible for me."
Viewers and listeners have become conditioned to expect -- and accept -- only perspectives that line up on one side of the aisle. Interestingly, while the audience hears the extremes, the populace appears headed in a different direction. A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll last month found that more respondents deemed their approach to issues as "moderate" (37 percent) than any other classification (very liberal, somewhat liberal, very conservative or somewhat conservative). Nevertheless, politicians, keyed up by on-camera conflict and forced into constant campaign mode by the 24-7 news cycle, strive to placate the most reliable voters, those who vote in primaries, tend to be the most polarized and make the most contributions. Ask South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson (R-"You lie!") or Florida Rep. Alan Grayson (D-"Die quickly") how their fundraising went in the quarters after their outlandish outbursts regarding the president's and the Republicans' respective health-care plans.
No wonder that, when elected, many treat their legislative colleagues the way they would a pundit on a split screen. Collegiality used to be commonplace. Now it's political kryptonite.
The endangered part of the political spectrum is now the middle. Centrists such as Republican New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava get ridiculed as weak or lacking in principle. Sen. Arlen Specter's decisive loss in Pennsylvania and Sen. John McCain's fight for his political life in Arizona are signs of the vulnerability of nonideologues running in primaries that cater to the passions at the ends of the spectrum.
All of which leaves more elected officials beholden to the fringe elements of their parties, which in turn means less gets done. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is robbing our televisions and radios of the substantive dialogue the country desperately needs, while leaving our politics a petty and unproductive mess.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Fox Business Low on ratings, high on Fox falsehoods
Media Matters: Fox Business: Low on ratings, high on Fox-patented GOP boosterism and falsehoods
When News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch introduced the Fox Business Network in 2007, he made no attempt to hide the fact that the financial channel would reflect his own conservative philosophy. The financial media, in his view, should be in the business of "celebrat[ing]" free-market capitalism.
As Murdoch saw it, the existing media were too quick to ''leap on every scandal" and "are not as friendly to corporations and profits as they should be." In contrast to purportedly anti-business CNBC, Fox Business would be ''more business friendly" and "celebrate the freedom and sense of optimism that free markets have given Americans." America, according to Australian-born Murdoch, has the best "corruption-free companies in the world. Our companies are beacons of success that the rest of the world looks to, not that you'd know that through much of the business coverage we see every day."
As he did with Fox News, executive Roger Ailes has imported Murdoch's conservative philosophy to FBN, where the network's coverage and most visible personalities are unabashedly conservative and dismissive of progressives. The head of FBN's news division is senior vice president, host, and tea-party booster Neil Cavuto, who donated to President Bush, bashed the "awful" Democratic health care bill, and sports a record of misinforming viewers about economic issues.
Morning anchor Stuart Varney is a British expat whose shtick involves complaining that "socialist" Democrats are pushing America in the direction of his former country. Varney is described by Fox Business as a "business journalist" and news "anchor." Yet he admits that he's "very partisan," "very clearly partisan" and can't resist bashing Democrats while propping up Republicans. Varney also -- stop the presses -- misinforms viewers about economic issues,
David Asman, another "journalist," hosts the prime-time show America's Nightly Scoreboard. Asman, lover of Milton Friedman, makes it a habit to assail Social Security, Democrats, and "hypocrite" environmentalists who dare get in the way of activities like more oil drilling. Asman is one of the channel's biggest proponents of the tea parties, once telling viewers they "need to go" to a tea party merchandise site. Asman also -- hold the phone -- misinforms viewers about economic issues.
John Stossel, host of his own weekly "libertarian" show, has argued that the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act should be repealed to restore the right to discriminate and that the "free market" would have likely resolved the issue of racial discrimination by businesses -- a claim that civil rights expert Andrew Grant-Thomas called "ahistorical" and "unempirical." Stossel recently keynoted a fundraising luncheon for a "research" organization with heavy ties to the energy industry. When Stossel joined Fox, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said he'd be "very natural fit" because "he's conservative." Stossel also has a history of -- call grandma -- misinforming viewers.
Fox, which defends itself by claiming that its "fair and balanced" reporters just report the news, employs FBN "reporter" Tracy Byrnes, who said Democrats voting yes on health care "make me sick," and "senior correspondent" Charles Gasparino, who said he wouldn't vote for the Democrats' health care bill ("Who would?").
FBN also recently announced promotions for Eric Bolling and Andrew Napolitano. Bolling, previously of the canceled afternoon show Happy Hour, will get a weekday prime-time show, his apparent reward for shilling for Republican candidates, and -- start the Drudge siren -- misinforming viewers about economic issues.
Napolitano, meanwhile, will bring his previously online-only show Freedom Watch to FBN on a weekly basis. Napolitano is an unabashed libertarian, meaning that while he disagrees with some of his Fox colleagues on certain social and national security issues, he'll fit right in on economic matters. In its online iterations, Freedom Watch frequently gave a platform to fringe guests like 9-11 conspiracy leaders Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura; Thomas E. Woods Jr., who has been a member of the League of the South, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has called a "racist" hate group; and "libertarian anarchist" Lew Rockwell, who excoriates Abraham Lincoln and openly pushes for secession. Napolitano has used his Fox perch to push inane conspiracy theories and -- insert any remaining idiom here -- misinform viewers.
How many people not getting paychecks from Media Matters will actually watch those shows, though, remains a question. While Fox News has undoubtedly achieved ratings success, Fox Business, in its third year, continues to post "feeble" ratings. While CNBC is available in more than 90 million households, FBN is available in just 50 million. Vanity Fair's Matt Pressman wrote last November that "it's fairly safe to assume" that "most of its shows fall short of attracting 35,000 viewers," or roughly one-tenth of CNBC's audience and a hundredth of SpongeBob SquarePants'.
The most high-profile show on FBN -- a dubious honor -- isn't even a business-oriented show. Last October, FBN began simulcasting Don Imus, best known for helping pioneer shock jock radio decades ago and smearing female basketball players. Imus, as he has self-deprecatingly acknowledged, has no expertise in business news, which is why FBN incorporates several business updates on his show.
Fox hopes to grow its fledgling business channel by cross-promoting it on Fox News, which also struggled with early ratings. Fox News has begun using hosts like apparent financial wizards Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to tout FBN as "no-spin talk you can trust" and the network that "wants you to succeed." Varney, Bolling, Byrnes, and others regularly appear on FNC, where they're touted as financial experts -- facts to the contrary -- while Cavuto incessantly uses his afternoon FNC show to implore viewers to "demand" FBN from their cable providers.
In a new ad for the network, Fox states that Fox Business and Fox News offer "two networks, twice the power." Indeed, from its inception to its recent hiring decisions, Fox Business has made it clear that like its sister channel, "fair and balanced" is merely a wink and a nod to viewers looking for a reaffirmation of conservative myths and blatant GOP boosterism.
Glenn Beck continues his public embarrassment tour
If a week goes by without Media Matters documenting something embarrassing or pathetic from Glenn Beck, it's probably because he's on vacation.
Case in point, the self-described "rodeo clown," last seen making fun of an 11-year-old girl, refused to apologize for promoting the work of pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist Elizabeth Dilling. As Beck tells it, he sat down with the book The Red Network one night and found it so inspiring that he had to share it the very next day. Yet The Red Network contains passages rife with racism ("colored men" are dancing with white women!), anti-Semitism (let's be fair to Nazi Germany's anti-Jewish activities), and religious bigotry (Hinduism and Islam are "debasing and degrading"; Judaism and Hinduism spread "propaganda").
On the topic of books, Beck will soon release his brand new "thriller" The Overton Window, which he promises will "drive the left insane." Beck's right: Media Matters obtained a copy of the book before its Tuesday release, and as Media Matters' Simon Maloy and Ben Dimiero note, the "awful" novel contains "plot holes, ridiculous narrative devices, and long-winded limited-government sermonizing passed off as dialogue." Beck's Overton Window includes the phrase soon to engulf college campuses and future Gossip Girl episodes: "Don't tease the panther."
Beck also began touting his 8-28 rally -- the same day as Martin Luther King's 1963 March on Washington -- as one that will "reclaim the civil rights movement" and "be remembered as the moment America turned the corner." Beck, who informed readers may know is not a civil rights hero, has compared himself to civil rights heroes Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Gandhi, and African-Americans who had "dogs and fire hoses" released on them. Beck's even gone so far as to claim that he's advancing "the plan that [God] would have me articulate, I think" against "darkness."
In an interview with The New York Times last year, multimillionaire rodeo clown Beck said that if people take what he says "as gospel, you're an idiot" -- food for thought for the Beck followers buying 8-28 rally plane tickets or Overton Window books.
Fox News hates Boxer, loves former colleague Fiorina
Fox doesn't like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
According to those on the channel's payroll, Boxer is an embarrassing, condescending, big-spending, anti-military liberal "dope" who "stands for everything that is wrong with Washington."
While that hyperpartisan venting sounds like something from Fox News' "opinion" side, "reporter" William La Jeunesse has been one of Boxer's most frequent smearers. Not only did La Jeunesse state, in his own words, that Boxer "stands for everything that is wrong with Washington," he also forwarded the ridiculously false attack by opponent Carly Fiorina (R) that Boxer "is more interested in protecting climate change and the weather than actually the public."
Fiorina is a former member of the Fox News family, having been hired in October 2007 as a Fox Business Network contributor. Fiorina's financial disclosure statement states that she received nearly $58,000 for her employment with the "Fox Broadcasting Company."
Unsurprisingly, Fiorina has received glowing coverage and interviews on the network and netted endorsements from Fox Newsers Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Dick Morris. But she stumbled this week when an open mic caught her appearing to disparage Fox News host Sean Hannity. Perhaps realizing Fox's role in the GOP apparatus, Fiorina directly apologized to Hannity.
In the midst of embarrassments like Glenn Beck, the Fox Business Network, and its Fiorina coverage, Fox News is pushing to get Helen Thomas' front-row seat in the White House briefing room. Media Matters' Jeremy Holden wrote that the White House Correspondents Association should resist any efforts to give Fox the seat, given its history. Appearing on Imus, Wallace said that Fox getting the seat would be "poetic justice" since Thomas is considered liberal. After prodding from Imus, Wallace quickly backtracked by claiming he meant Fox News is "fair and balanced," then added that maybe he should "stop digging."
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Eric Hananoki, a research fellow at Media Matters for America.
When News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch introduced the Fox Business Network in 2007, he made no attempt to hide the fact that the financial channel would reflect his own conservative philosophy. The financial media, in his view, should be in the business of "celebrat[ing]" free-market capitalism.
As Murdoch saw it, the existing media were too quick to ''leap on every scandal" and "are not as friendly to corporations and profits as they should be." In contrast to purportedly anti-business CNBC, Fox Business would be ''more business friendly" and "celebrate the freedom and sense of optimism that free markets have given Americans." America, according to Australian-born Murdoch, has the best "corruption-free companies in the world. Our companies are beacons of success that the rest of the world looks to, not that you'd know that through much of the business coverage we see every day."
As he did with Fox News, executive Roger Ailes has imported Murdoch's conservative philosophy to FBN, where the network's coverage and most visible personalities are unabashedly conservative and dismissive of progressives. The head of FBN's news division is senior vice president, host, and tea-party booster Neil Cavuto, who donated to President Bush, bashed the "awful" Democratic health care bill, and sports a record of misinforming viewers about economic issues.
Morning anchor Stuart Varney is a British expat whose shtick involves complaining that "socialist" Democrats are pushing America in the direction of his former country. Varney is described by Fox Business as a "business journalist" and news "anchor." Yet he admits that he's "very partisan," "very clearly partisan" and can't resist bashing Democrats while propping up Republicans. Varney also -- stop the presses -- misinforms viewers about economic issues,
David Asman, another "journalist," hosts the prime-time show America's Nightly Scoreboard. Asman, lover of Milton Friedman, makes it a habit to assail Social Security, Democrats, and "hypocrite" environmentalists who dare get in the way of activities like more oil drilling. Asman is one of the channel's biggest proponents of the tea parties, once telling viewers they "need to go" to a tea party merchandise site. Asman also -- hold the phone -- misinforms viewers about economic issues.
John Stossel, host of his own weekly "libertarian" show, has argued that the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act should be repealed to restore the right to discriminate and that the "free market" would have likely resolved the issue of racial discrimination by businesses -- a claim that civil rights expert Andrew Grant-Thomas called "ahistorical" and "unempirical." Stossel recently keynoted a fundraising luncheon for a "research" organization with heavy ties to the energy industry. When Stossel joined Fox, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said he'd be "very natural fit" because "he's conservative." Stossel also has a history of -- call grandma -- misinforming viewers.
Fox, which defends itself by claiming that its "fair and balanced" reporters just report the news, employs FBN "reporter" Tracy Byrnes, who said Democrats voting yes on health care "make me sick," and "senior correspondent" Charles Gasparino, who said he wouldn't vote for the Democrats' health care bill ("Who would?").
FBN also recently announced promotions for Eric Bolling and Andrew Napolitano. Bolling, previously of the canceled afternoon show Happy Hour, will get a weekday prime-time show, his apparent reward for shilling for Republican candidates, and -- start the Drudge siren -- misinforming viewers about economic issues.
Napolitano, meanwhile, will bring his previously online-only show Freedom Watch to FBN on a weekly basis. Napolitano is an unabashed libertarian, meaning that while he disagrees with some of his Fox colleagues on certain social and national security issues, he'll fit right in on economic matters. In its online iterations, Freedom Watch frequently gave a platform to fringe guests like 9-11 conspiracy leaders Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura; Thomas E. Woods Jr., who has been a member of the League of the South, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has called a "racist" hate group; and "libertarian anarchist" Lew Rockwell, who excoriates Abraham Lincoln and openly pushes for secession. Napolitano has used his Fox perch to push inane conspiracy theories and -- insert any remaining idiom here -- misinform viewers.
How many people not getting paychecks from Media Matters will actually watch those shows, though, remains a question. While Fox News has undoubtedly achieved ratings success, Fox Business, in its third year, continues to post "feeble" ratings. While CNBC is available in more than 90 million households, FBN is available in just 50 million. Vanity Fair's Matt Pressman wrote last November that "it's fairly safe to assume" that "most of its shows fall short of attracting 35,000 viewers," or roughly one-tenth of CNBC's audience and a hundredth of SpongeBob SquarePants'.
The most high-profile show on FBN -- a dubious honor -- isn't even a business-oriented show. Last October, FBN began simulcasting Don Imus, best known for helping pioneer shock jock radio decades ago and smearing female basketball players. Imus, as he has self-deprecatingly acknowledged, has no expertise in business news, which is why FBN incorporates several business updates on his show.
Fox hopes to grow its fledgling business channel by cross-promoting it on Fox News, which also struggled with early ratings. Fox News has begun using hosts like apparent financial wizards Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to tout FBN as "no-spin talk you can trust" and the network that "wants you to succeed." Varney, Bolling, Byrnes, and others regularly appear on FNC, where they're touted as financial experts -- facts to the contrary -- while Cavuto incessantly uses his afternoon FNC show to implore viewers to "demand" FBN from their cable providers.
In a new ad for the network, Fox states that Fox Business and Fox News offer "two networks, twice the power." Indeed, from its inception to its recent hiring decisions, Fox Business has made it clear that like its sister channel, "fair and balanced" is merely a wink and a nod to viewers looking for a reaffirmation of conservative myths and blatant GOP boosterism.
Glenn Beck continues his public embarrassment tour
If a week goes by without Media Matters documenting something embarrassing or pathetic from Glenn Beck, it's probably because he's on vacation.
Case in point, the self-described "rodeo clown," last seen making fun of an 11-year-old girl, refused to apologize for promoting the work of pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist Elizabeth Dilling. As Beck tells it, he sat down with the book The Red Network one night and found it so inspiring that he had to share it the very next day. Yet The Red Network contains passages rife with racism ("colored men" are dancing with white women!), anti-Semitism (let's be fair to Nazi Germany's anti-Jewish activities), and religious bigotry (Hinduism and Islam are "debasing and degrading"; Judaism and Hinduism spread "propaganda").
On the topic of books, Beck will soon release his brand new "thriller" The Overton Window, which he promises will "drive the left insane." Beck's right: Media Matters obtained a copy of the book before its Tuesday release, and as Media Matters' Simon Maloy and Ben Dimiero note, the "awful" novel contains "plot holes, ridiculous narrative devices, and long-winded limited-government sermonizing passed off as dialogue." Beck's Overton Window includes the phrase soon to engulf college campuses and future Gossip Girl episodes: "Don't tease the panther."
Beck also began touting his 8-28 rally -- the same day as Martin Luther King's 1963 March on Washington -- as one that will "reclaim the civil rights movement" and "be remembered as the moment America turned the corner." Beck, who informed readers may know is not a civil rights hero, has compared himself to civil rights heroes Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Gandhi, and African-Americans who had "dogs and fire hoses" released on them. Beck's even gone so far as to claim that he's advancing "the plan that [God] would have me articulate, I think" against "darkness."
In an interview with The New York Times last year, multimillionaire rodeo clown Beck said that if people take what he says "as gospel, you're an idiot" -- food for thought for the Beck followers buying 8-28 rally plane tickets or Overton Window books.
Fox News hates Boxer, loves former colleague Fiorina
Fox doesn't like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
According to those on the channel's payroll, Boxer is an embarrassing, condescending, big-spending, anti-military liberal "dope" who "stands for everything that is wrong with Washington."
While that hyperpartisan venting sounds like something from Fox News' "opinion" side, "reporter" William La Jeunesse has been one of Boxer's most frequent smearers. Not only did La Jeunesse state, in his own words, that Boxer "stands for everything that is wrong with Washington," he also forwarded the ridiculously false attack by opponent Carly Fiorina (R) that Boxer "is more interested in protecting climate change and the weather than actually the public."
Fiorina is a former member of the Fox News family, having been hired in October 2007 as a Fox Business Network contributor. Fiorina's financial disclosure statement states that she received nearly $58,000 for her employment with the "Fox Broadcasting Company."
Unsurprisingly, Fiorina has received glowing coverage and interviews on the network and netted endorsements from Fox Newsers Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Dick Morris. But she stumbled this week when an open mic caught her appearing to disparage Fox News host Sean Hannity. Perhaps realizing Fox's role in the GOP apparatus, Fiorina directly apologized to Hannity.
In the midst of embarrassments like Glenn Beck, the Fox Business Network, and its Fiorina coverage, Fox News is pushing to get Helen Thomas' front-row seat in the White House briefing room. Media Matters' Jeremy Holden wrote that the White House Correspondents Association should resist any efforts to give Fox the seat, given its history. Appearing on Imus, Wallace said that Fox getting the seat would be "poetic justice" since Thomas is considered liberal. After prodding from Imus, Wallace quickly backtracked by claiming he meant Fox News is "fair and balanced," then added that maybe he should "stop digging."
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Eric Hananoki, a research fellow at Media Matters for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)