Media and Technology

Provocative commentary on TV, film, print, radio; bloggers and journalists, truth and spin; plus media reform, news bias, Net Neutrality, corporate media control. Comprehensive coverage on Media & Technology here.

Tea-Parties so Diverse, They Had to Use the Same Black Guy in 5 Different Scenes of Tea-Bagger Movie
Posted by Oliver Willis, Oliver Willis.com on November 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM.

So there’s this ludicrous trailer for a ridiculous movie about the Tea Party people that came out today, and when I watched it I noticed that it kept showing the same black guy. Now, I knew the Teabaggers weren’t the most diverse crowd, but it’s kind of hilarious that they used the same dude in five shots in their trailer.

00:42

00:59

1:03

1:09

1:14

Krauthammer Commits Terrorist Act on the Opinion Pages of the Washington Post
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 20, 2009 at 1:41 PM.

Perhaps we should be concerned about Charles Krauthammer. He's been awfully stressed-out since the last election, and this week's decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York has him in a bit of a state ...

For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.

And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM.

Smell a bit of jealousy here? Krauthammer and Mohammed share a similar interest: instilling a profound dread of Islamic fundamentalism in the hearts of the American public -- the world public. Krauthammer's owned 9/11 for 8 years, and he'll have the final cut, not the damn director!

September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself ...

Right, the Bush bunch and all those right-wing bloggers never spoke on that day's behalf.

A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

We've seen terror trials. Judges have been pretty about not allowing the defendants to use them as a megaphone to promote their worldviews.

But setting aside reality for a moment -- and you have to in order to really soak in a good Krauthammer column -- I'm going to ask you to forget about politics and consider just what in the world might KSM say at that trial that has right-wingers cowering under their beds? Do you think he could -- gasp! -- accuse the U.S. of being craven imperialists? Of supporting Israeli "genocide" against the Palestinians? Might he dare suggest that we're waging a war on Islam? That we're trying to impose our decadent values on the rest of the world? My God, do you think he could accuse us of having some sort of interest in Middle East oil?!?

If KSM were permitted to utter these shocking allegations, would they come as a surprise to anyone? Is the danger here that nobody in the Muslim world has ever heard of such outlandish ideas before? Will ordinary Muslim men and women, hearing Mohammed's suggestion that America might be the Great Satan for the first time on some Al Jazeera broadcast suddenly drop whatever they're doing and strike out against the infidels?

I mean, seriously? If you're not already predisposed to al Qaeda's message (which one assumes is widely available), would you really give what Mohammed says during testimony a lot of credence (again, in the unlikely case they let him ramble)? Is he that articulate? Are we trying the scruffy dude who says he chopped off Daniel Pearl's head or Noam Chomsky here?

Whatever the risk, for Krauthammer it's just not worth it...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hmmm ... Why Do So Many Wingnuts Have Such an Obsessive Fear of Being Raped?
Posted by Staff, Media Matters for America on November 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM.

Conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage frequently employ rape metaphors when discussing progressives or progressive policies. For example, Beck said that New Yorkers are "being raped by [their] government," while Limbaugh, during a discussion of health care, told his listeners: "Get ready to get gang-raped again."

Video to your right; much more after the jump ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Best Paragraph Written About Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue"
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 19, 2009 at 4:48 PM.

I'm giving the nod to va, at Whiskey Fire:

The most unbelievable thing about Going Rogue, by the author-function "Sarah Palin," is that it's supposed to be self-serving. The problem a self-serving narrative about Sarah Palin confronts is that it's about Sarah Palin, whose entire life, it appears, consists of worse and worse attempts to create self-serving narratives explaining away bigger and bigger fuck-ups. Going Rogue's burden is that it must claim to be the definitive, encyclopedic explanation, the final excuse, for a long history of failure begat by failure; it's an epic of failure, if you will, and if the goal here is some kind of ultimate vindication, well, it is monumentally unsuccessful. Going Rogue is, at bottom, the story of every one of Sarah Palin's projects ending in grotesque catastrophe; it is only self-serving in the sense that these catastrophes either prove benign or turn out to be some other schlub's fault. If everything I knew about Sarah Palin came from this book (and basically it does), I would say her life has been like a play in which a deus-ex-machina descends at the end of every act to bestow peace and harmony, except the deus forgot to put on pants and everyone's just standing around going "uhhhh..." and then the lights go out and the scene changes.

Paragraphs 2 through 5 offer some fine and fun writing as well, so I urge you to read the whole thing.

Newsweek Taps Bush Aide For Obama Reporting
Posted by Ari Melber, The Nation on November 19, 2009 at 1:00 AM.

See if you can follow this logic.

A recent article in Newsweek states that Democrats could have won a "very significant number of Republican votes in Congress" for the stimulus -- had there only been a "meaningful tax-cut component." Political journalism is often imaginative, but this verges on delusion. After all, Obama labored to add about $280 billion in tax cuts to the stimulus -- over objections from many Democrats -- and still netted zero Republican votes in the House. Then, the piece asserts that Obama has no "coattails," based on 2009 elections, and reports "early signs of Obama fatigue are emerging." (Again, another observer might note that Democrats have won all 5 special congressional elections this year.) The article also predicts that gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey "will" make some Democrats "very nervous" about health care reform, which is a "political risk" for the party.

"We appear to be witnessing the beginnings of a significant Republican revival," continues the piece, bringing home its quirky counter-narrative. Lucky for struggling Democrats, however, this Newsweek item closes with some free political advice. "Liberals in Washington would do well to let go of the Republican breakdown narrative," notes the final sentence, "and pull back to the center--or suffer the consequences."

It's the kind of article that might leave you wondering if the author simply works for the G.O.P.

Newsweek's byline states that the writer, Yuval Levin, is "editor of National Affairs and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center." It all sounds quite journalistic and non-partisan. But Levin is also a former aide to President George W. Bush. (He served on the White House domestic policy staff as recently as 2006). If anything, this government experience makes Levin's political analysis more interesting. Why keep it from readers?

As it happens, Levin's first piece for Newsweek, back in March, was prominently billed as Obama analysis from "a Bush veteran." So I put the question to Newsweek, and spokesperson Katherine Barna shares their rationale:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

O'Reilly Warns of a Coming 'Tax Revolt': 'Pelosi Will be Bobbing Up and Down in the Boston Harbor'
Posted by Alex Seitz-Wald, Think Progress on November 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM.

Glenn Beck had Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on his radio show today to promote their upcoming "Bold & Fresh Tour," which will take the two right-wing personalities around the country to preach "the truth -- straight up, whether you like it or not." When Beck brought up Dennis Miller's appearance on the O’Reilly Factor last week -- in which Miller warned of a coming "insurrection" -- O'Reilly predicted a "tax revolt" that will "get nasty" and end up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor."

BECK: Last week, I head you say that -- you were on with Dennis Miller. … You two were talking about an insurrection coming.

O’REILLY: Tax revolt.

BECK: He used the word insurrection. And not in a comedic way.

O’REILLY: Yeah, tax revolt. I think people, when they figure out how badly they're going to get hurt in the next few years, there's going to be a tea party on taxes and its gonna get nasty. Nancy Pelosi's going to be bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

CNN Paid Lou Dobbs $8 Million to Quit
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 16, 2009 at 8:35 AM.

Although Lou Dobbs has been saying that his departure from CNN was an "amicable parting on the best of terms," the New York Post reports that CNN wanted him gone so badly that it gave him an $8 million severance package. Dobbs "had a year and a half to go on his $12 million contract." He'll be appearing on Fox News tonight to talk with Bill O'Reilly, who has called the former CNN host a "stand-up guy."

Takes a Serious Contrarian to Go After Captain "Sully" Sullenberger's Heroic Image
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 16, 2009 at 3:17 AM.

Russ Buettner, NY Times:

In America today, the half-life of newly minted hero status seems to end the moment that Oprah’s jaw drops. No sooner does someone amaze us than someone else seeks to diminish their splendor.

But Sully?

In a new book, “Fly by Wire,” William Langewiesche takes a run at knocking down the hero rank of Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the US Airways pilot who in January glided a powerless Airbus A320 to an emergency landing in the Hudson River, according to a review published in The New York Times on Wednesday.

Mr. Langewiesche argues that Captain Sullenberger’s landing did not display “unusual skill.” Instead, he posits that perhaps the real hero was Bernard Ziegler, a former Airbus executive credited with helping the airline develop what is known as a fly-by-wire control system, which eased the difficulties of handling an aircraft.

“Like it or not, Ziegler reached out across the years and cradled them all the way to the water,” writes Mr. Langewiesche, who is himself a former professional pilot.

I can't offer a review of Langewiesche's book -- haven't read it. And while I can't see how it could be anything other than an act of unusual skill to land a loaded jetliner without thrust on a narrow river in the middle of a densely packed city without injury, I won't try to dispute his argument. William Langewiesche is a pretty brilliant writer and, as the excerpt indicates, he, unlike myself, is a former professional pilot.

But I've got to ask why? Why bother writing a book to muddy Sully's heroic image?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

G. Gordon Liddy "Convinced" Obama is a Muslim
Posted by Matt Corley, Think Progress on November 15, 2009 at 7:51 AM.

On his radio show today, G. Gordon Liddy hosted former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer to discuss his Human Events column on the Fort Hood massacre, in which Bauer — echoing his close personal friend Bill Kristol — declared that “[p]olitical correctness has been radical Islam’s greatest asset in its war against America. Let’s execute it.” “Accommodation of Islam pervades our schools,” added Bauer in his column.

In the beginning of their discussion, Liddy said that political correctness towards Islam “precedes the Obama administration” because President Bush proclaimed that “Islam is a religion of peace.” “You know that’s just not true,” said Liddy. Later in the conversation, after Bauer complained that Obama’s Homeland Security adviser John Brennan would lead the investigation into what the U.S. intelligence community knew about Nidal Malik Hasan before his attack, Liddy announced his belief that President Obama “is a Muslim”:

LIDDY: I’m convinced that despite his protestations to the contrary, that Barack Obama is a Muslim. I don’t believe that he’s a Christian at all. I believe he’s a Muslim.

BAUER: Well, you know the church that he famously or infamously attended was, was odd in many ways. Not only the rantings of its pastor, the clear racist rantings of its pastor, which the President chose to listen to year after year with his family and his children. You know something that still in my view has never been adequately explained. But it was also a church that had some real strange ideas about Islam and Christianity. I’ve seen a number of suggestions that there were many people in the congregation that considered themselves both Christian and Muslim. Something that I’m sure both real Christians and real Muslims would deny is possible.

Not only did Bauer not disagree with Liddy’s claim that Obama is lying about his Christianity, he went on to praise Liddy’s contribution to America’s political debate. “You do an outstanding job on your show bringing people the information they need,” said Bauer. “I commend you for the good work you do every day.” Listen to it here:

It’s not surprising that Liddy would hold such a fringe view. After all, he is a prominent birther who thinks that Obama is an “illegal alien.” Bauer, on the other hand, has previously written that he doesn’t want to “question the sincerity of Obama’s faith.” But in playing along with Liddy, that’s exactly what he has done.

Zombie Lies Don't Die ... WSJ Spins Discredited Claim that Programs for the Poor Caused Housing Crisis
Posted by Staff, Media Matters for America on November 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM.

A November 13 Wall Street Journal op-ed claimed that loans made "under the pressure of" the Community Reinvestment Act helped to "fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen." The claim that affordable housing initiatives were responsible for the housing crisis is a widely discredited myth.

From Edward Pinto's Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Congress's goal was to force these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to purchase loans that had been originated by banks -- loans that were made under the pressure of another federal law, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to increase lending in low- and moderate-income communities.

From 1977 to 1991, $9 billion in local CRA lending commitments had been announced. CRA lending by large banks increased dramatically after the affordable housing mandate was in place in 1993, growing to $6 trillion today. As Ellen Seidman, director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a speech before the Greenlining Institute on Oct. 2, 2001, "Our record home ownership rate [increasing from 64.2% in 1994 to 68% in 2001], I'm convinced, would not have been reached without CRA and its close relative, the Fannie/Freddie requirements."

The 1992 GSE Act was the fuse, and the trillions of dollars in subsequent CRA and GSE affordable-housing loans would fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen. But who lit the fuse?

[...]

Fifty percent of the high-risk loans are estimated to be CRA loans, with much of the remainder useful to the GSEs in meeting their affordable-housing goals.

The flood of CRA and affordable-housing loans with loosened underwriting standards, combined with declining mortgage interest rates-to 5% in 2003 from 10% in early 1991-resulted in a massive increase in borrowing capacity and fueled a house price bubble of unprecedented magnitude over the period 1997-2006.

Now this history may repeat itself as many of the same community groups are pushing Congress to expand CRA to cover all mortgage lenders, credit unions, insurance companies and others financial industry segments. Are we about to set the stage for another catastrophe? [The Wall Street Journal, 11/13/09]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

But What Does That 'Get a Brain Morans' Dude Think About All This?
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 14, 2009 at 9:54 AM.

I've had this nagging question bouncing around the old brain-pan for the past day or two.

It's about this dude:

You know him, you love feeling superior to him, he's clearly a superstar among liberal bloggers and their readers.

Booman referenced the iconic tea-partier* the other day, and something one of his commenters wrote got me thinking:

I am almost starting to feel sorry for that guy in the picture. Poor bastard.

He's probably too stupid to have a computer, but his kids will see their dad forever.**

Of course, an enormous number of stupid people own and use computers. Yet studies suggest that in terms of the websites we browse and the news media we consume, we are a deeply polarized nation. According to a Pew study, online users tend to "find and join groups that share their ideological, cultural, and lifestyle preferences."

And that widely-cited study of the political blogosphere during the 2004 elections (PDF):

... we found that liberal and conservative blogs did indeed have different lists of favorite news sources, people, and topics to discuss.... The division between liberals and conservatives was further reflected in the linking pattern between the blogs, with a great ma jority of the links remaining internal to either liberal or conservative communities.

We're also sorting ourselves out in the real world, living in communities of increasingly like-minded people. Who travels in moran-dude's circles? Well consider this: it's not just the hilarious misspelling that makes the image so rich, but also the knowledge that none of the people around him noticed. (You just know he proudly carried that sign around all morning as he anticipated sticking it to those smug hippie liberals.) So I think it's safe to assume that he and his pro-war fellow-travelers probably aren't big readers of Daily Kos or Talkingpoints Memo.

Which raises an interesting question: could a viral internet sensation like 'get a brain morans' dude -- a sensation only on our side of the information divide -- be splashed all over hundreds of thousands of web-pages and not even know it? Is he living his life, listening to Rush's soothing stream of grievances as he drives to and from his crappy mcjob, completely oblivious to the fact that he's brought countless smiles to the lips of millions of progressives across the country?

Is it possible in this wired era of social segregation to get your 15 minutes of fame and just miss them entirely?

I mean, surely that guy's as well known as this one ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Media Fail: 2nd Cop, not Kimberly Munley, Brought Down Ft. Hood Shooter
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 14, 2009 at 9:44 AM.

On Friday, the New York Times ran an interview with Sgt. Mark Todd, the police officer who, contrary to previous reports, ended the Fort Hood rampage by shooting Nidal Hasan.

Sgt. Kimberly D. Munley has been applauded as a hero across the nation for shooting down Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan during the bloody rampage at Fort Hood last week. The account of heroism, given by the authorities, attracted the attention of newspapers, the networks and television talk shows.

But the initial story of how she and the accused gunman went down in an exchange of gunfire now appears to be inaccurate.

Another officer, Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, 42, said in an interview Thursday that he fired the shots that brought down the gunman after Sergeant Munley was seriously wounded. A witness confirmed Sergeant Todd’s account.

Over at Editor and Publisher, Greg Mitchell chides the media for once again buying a story of singular heroism by a sympathetic individual without independently confirming the account.

First, it was the "death" of Major Hasan, not corrected for many hours. Then, for days, the story of how a female cop brought down the shooter, even as she was receiving serious wounds. Yet I noticed just hours after the attack that scattered eyewitnesses, via the Web and Twitter, were saying that the killer re-loaded after Sgt. Kimberly Munley went down.

How could he have done that if she had just plugged him four times, supposedly ending the rampage? Some of those witnesses said they yelled at the second cop to shoot Hasan--which he did, and then went up and kicked his gun away...

Most news outlets for days labeled Munley "the" (singular) Fort Hood hero. She was the "Mighty Mouse." It wasn't until two days ago that Sgt.Todd got feature billing, although in a secondary role. Now, in the past day, he is finally getting his due as the original account begins to fall away. The cop most responsible for saving the day, it turns out, is a black man, not a white woman.

We recommend reading Mitchell's whole piece here.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

National Review Bedwetters Wet Bed Over Terror Trial
Posted by Booman, Booman Tribune on November 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM.

The main reason that supporters of Bush's anti-terror policies are wetting their pajamas is pretty clear from a look at National Review Online:

We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

No doubt the defense attorneys will try to exclude evidence obtained while these defendants were being tortured in black prison sites. But, the DOJ isn't going to rely on any of that evidence. No judge is going to allow a self-defense argument, so our policies are not going to be on trial. The indictments will be based on information obtained legally. The right is afraid that these folks will be convicted and sentenced to death for a crime that can proven without resorting to torture. And, then, what will be left of their justification for despoiling our country's reputation for upholding human rights?

Their continued expression of fear at the prospect of having these terrorists present on American soil is pathetic. They ought to spend the rest of their days huddling in their 1950's-built nuclear bombshelters. The only thing they fear more than terrorist attacks is having to face up to the pointlessness of what has been done with their support.

Right Swoons Over Bush's Widely Publicized "Unpublicized" Visit to Fort Hood
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM.

There's some buzz in the right-wing blogosphere in response to this post on a PUMA blog (yes, PUMA blogs are still around) and this one by Jerusalem Post columnist and editor Caroline Glick, both praising George W. Bush for his "unpublicized" trip last week to see wounded Fort Hood soldiers.

An excerpt from Glick's post:

Missing George W. Bush

A couple of days ago I heard the news that George and Laura Bush paid a private visit to the wounded soldiers at Fort Hood. They specifically requested that the base commander not inform the media of their visit. They came. They comforted the wounded soldiers and the Fort Hood community for a couple of hours. And then they left. And they never had their pictures taken saluting the troops or holding their hands.

When I heard the news, I felt this pain that hasn't gone away. It's a pain that I have been feeling fairly often since last November....

When I heard the news, I was struck by the fact that I heard the news. Isn't it odd how fast word of this "private" visit got around -- on Fox News the next morning, and ultimately all over the media? Darn that base commander, or whoever it was, who informed the press of the visit even though Bush specifically requested that it not be publicized!

A cynic, of course, would say that there's an effort in Bushworld to sell him as a guy who not only visits troops but shuns any publicity for those visits -- and what do you know, there was a story publicizing Bush's aversion to publicity in the Bush-friendly Washington Times last December, just about when Bushies were devoting considerable energy to making the case in the media for his "legacy":

EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.

Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country....

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

FOX News' Hannity Sort of Apologizes for Falsified Rally Report
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 12, 2009 at 6:38 AM.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

Caught (dare we say it?) red-handed -- by those pinkos at The Daily Show -- falsifying a Hannity show report about last week's Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill, FOX News host Sean Hannity issued a grudging apology last night.

On the November 5 edition of his show, Hannity interviewed Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who had convened a Capitol Hill rally of Tea Party activists to rail against health care and hate on the president that very day. I was there, and would estimate crowd to have been about 5,000. Not bad for a Thursday afternoon.

Not enough for Bachmann and Hannity, apparently. Bachmann claimed that between 20,000 - 45,000 for her three-hours-hate at the Capitol while Hannity showed as evidence footage from the 912 march -- a much larger event that drew about 70,000 -- passing it off as B-roll from the Thursday rally.

Someone on Jon Stewart's staff was watching Hannity that night. Busted! (And in a most delightful way -- see video below the jump).

Last night, Hannity issued a grudging apology. Here's the transcript, via The Brad Blog:

HANNITY: Finally tonight...Although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart, Comedy Central - he was right.

Now, on his program last night he mentioned that we had played some incorrect video on this program last week while talking about the Republican Health Care rally on Capitol Hill.

He was correct, we screwed up - we aired some video of a rally in September, along with a video from the actual event. It was an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. So Mr. Stewart, you were right… we apologize… and by the way, I want to thank you, and all your writers, for watching.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Is Obama Caving to Fox?
Posted by Adam Bink, Open Left on November 12, 2009 at 1:00 AM.

Well, that was quick. Yesterday was the announcement that White House interim Communications Director Anita Dunn, who started this fight with FOX, would be leaving. Today is this:

President Obama will give an interview to Fox News' Major Garrett, Drudge reports.

The interview will take place in China next week and comes just one day after it was reported that Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn the so-called general in the administration's war against Fox News will be stepping down.

[...]

Fox News executive Michael Clemente met recently at the White House with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and since then the tensions between the two parties have cooled; senior adviser David Axelrod granted an interview to Garrett last week.

In response, Glenn Beck cackles and calls Anita Dunn a Communist. So, heckuva job, White House! Things have really changed.

I don't have any place to speculate that Dunn was forced out or this is some gesture to FOX or whatever, but it certainly doesn't look good. And how exactly have tensions cooled? Like I wrote back when this first started, this is akin to spanking FOX, sending them to their room, and expecting things to change. They are, and always will be, either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party (and those aren't even mine, those are Dunn's words, speaking for the White House!). They were before Obama came. They will be after Obama leaves. This is a long-term issue, which doesn't justify the White House's "FOX is being mean to us so we spanked them and they'll do better" mindset.

And by the way, what about the rest of us out here? FOX's hosts will continue to smear ACORN, Alan Grayson, Democrats in Congress, SEIU, and on and on and on. Even if the White House argues that FOX will play nice with them from now on, the rest of us still get thrown under the bus.

So I said it before, and I'll say it again. This was a job half-assed.

Dobbs to Quit CNN
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 11, 2009 at 3:59 PM.

Quick note from the NY Times:

Lou Dobbs, the longtime CNN anchor whose anti-immigration views have made him a TV lightning rod, plans to announce Wednesday that he is leaving the network, two network employees said.

A CNN executive confirmed that Mr. Dobbs will announce his resignation plans on his 7 p.m. program. His resignation is effective immediately; tonight’s program will be his last on CNN. His contract was not set to expire until the end of 2011.

Dobbs has been under fire for his inflammatory rhetoric.

Fox Mogul Rupert Murdoch Echoes Glenn Beck, Calls Obama a Racist
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM.

MURDOCH FANS THE FLAMES.... It seemed, for a while, like the political world was prepared to move beyond the animosity between Fox News and the White House. Presidential aides seemed to cut back on noticing the Republican network's partisan efforts, and Fox News returned to more routine, everyday bashing of Democrats.

Indeed, just 13 days ago, we learned that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs met personally with Fox News SVP Michael Clemente. There was talk of a "truce." It was time to move on.

Or so we thought. just four days after the reported "truce," Chris Wallace gave Rush Limbaugh a half-hour of airtime on "Fox News Sunday," which the right-wing radio host used to make one ridiculous attack against the president after another. There was no obvious reason for the interview.

And just a few days after Wallace's love-fest with Limbaugh, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch told Sky News Australia that Glenn Beck's infamous anti-Obama tirade -- Beck called the president a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture" -- was accurate.

SKY NEWS: The Glenn Beck, who you mentioned, has called Barack Obama a racist and he helped organize a protest against him. Others on Fox have likened him to Stalin. Is that defensible?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Woops! Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Remember What the Public Option Is Called, or That It's Pretty Popular (Video)
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on November 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM.

Last night on Fox News, host Bill O’Reilly and analyst Brit Hume discussed the prospects for the Senate passing a health care reform bill. After struggling with the terminology for the “public option,” O’Reilly ultimately concluded that “all the polls say” that “the folks don’t want it.”

Hume, a regular Fox News misinformer, surprisingly corrected O’Reilly, noting that Americans actually support the public option:

O’REILLY: They call it, you know, the public sector. What is the –

HUME: Public option, you mean?

O’REILLY: Public option, whatever. The folks don’t want it. … But it looks to me like they have maybe 55 votes to pass it. And that means they could be filibustered and never come up for a vote.

HUME: That’s what it looks like right now. The public option, actually some polls show that the public option standing by itself is not at all unpopular, but it is kind of popular. But that depends on how the poll question is raised. … We don’t need to go into all that right now.

Watch it:

Those trying to derail reform with a public option try to claim that Americans don’t support it. “All the polls now indicate substantial opposition to this particular type of health care reform,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said last night on Fox. But Hume is right. Americans do support the public option, as recent polling shows:

– CNN/Opinion Research, Oct. 30 – Nov. 1: 55 percent support “creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies.”

– Ipsos/McClatchy, Oct. 30 – Nov. 1: 51 percent support the “creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bill O'Reilly Goes After Sesame Street: ‘We May Have To Ambush Oscar’
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on November 10, 2009 at 4:30 AM.

During an episode of Sesame Street that was originally broadcast two years ago, a character tells Oscar the Grouch, who happens to be reporting for "GNN" (Grouchy News Network), that she is switching her news viewing loyalties to "Pox News," adding, "Now there is a trashy news show."

Right winger Andrew Breitbart's "Big Hollywood" blog took on the Sesame Street menace last week proclaiming: "Add one more soldier to the Left's war on Fox News: Oscar the Grouch":

If Mom and Dad watch cable news, it's better than 50/50 they watch "POX News." So what gives? PBS -- a network partially funded with my tax dollars -- has the right to tell my kids that their parents watch "trashy" news? The message is clear, I can't even sit my kids in front of "Sesame Street" without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority.

Thursday night on Fox News, host Bill O'Reilly picked up on Big Hollywood's rant and couldn't resist defending his network against the smear merchants at Sesame Street. "Say it ain't so. Sesame Street trashing Fox News!" O'Reilly complained. After airing the segment in question, O'Reilly said wryly, "We may have to ambush Oscar." Watch it:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Ugly Politics of Mass Killings
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 7, 2009 at 2:13 PM.

FUNNY THING ABOUT RIGHT WINGERS

So far, I haven't heard anyone on the right saying that the authorities shouldn't charge Malik Nidal Hassan with a hate crime because doing so would be a totalitarian, Orwellian criminalization of a thoughtcrime. But surely they'll want to make that point firmly and decisively in the days to come ... right?

****

And I'm confused. Right-wingers (NewsBusters in particular) have told us for years that the "liberal media" doesn't like to acknowledge certain demographic information about certain suspects in horrible crimes ... but right now CNN is prominently highlighting a convenience-store surveillance video showing Hasan in a traditional Middle Eastern robe and skullcap (the story is headlined "Fort Hood Suspect Seemed 'Cool, Calm, Religious'"), while the front pages of Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post prominently feature stories that claim Nidal shouted "Allahu akbar!" before shooting (a claim made by Fort Hood's commanding officer in an interview on the allegedly arch-liberal NBC). How can this be? Where's the liberal cover-up? And if there's no cover-up, gosh, why isn't NewsBusters heaping these news outlets with praise?

(The same right-wingers, of course, went to great pains to make the case that James von Brunn, the man charged with shooting up the Holocaust Museum, was a liberal. But our side, naturally, is the guilty side.)

Palin Getting Paranoid? Alaska Quit-Bull Bans Laptops, Cell-Phones During Speech
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM.

CNN:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is set to deliver remarks at a Wisconsin Right to Life event Friday evening, one of the few speeches the former Republican presidential nominee will have given since she resigned the governorship last summer.

But Palin appears to be doing her best to keep a low profile on this trip: no press will be allowed into the Milwaukee auditorium where she will speak and those who have paid the $30 admittance fee are unable to carry in cell phones, cameras, laptops, or recording devices of any kind.

Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate told the Wisconsin Radio Network he finds all these restrictions "bizarre."

"You know, for someone who claims to be a rogue and isn't afraid of what other people think it really is sort of hypocritical to not let the media, the press cover your event."

Pat Boone Wants to Rid the White House of "Vermin"
Posted by David Neiwert, Orcinus on November 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM.

Well, we've known for some time that Pat Boone has gone wingnutty, but his latest column for the wingnutty WorldNetDaily is one of the most vile pieces of eliminationist rhetoric to come down the pike in awhile:

In time, it seems to happen to all older houses, no matter how well tended they may be.

All manner of parasites, vermin, roaches, rats, worms and termites find their way into the building. Long before they're detected, they infiltrate the walls, the floors, the roofs – and then chew their way into the structure, the supporting beams and the very foundation of the house itself. Silently, surreptitiously, whole communities of invaders make places for themselves, hidden but thriving, totally unknown by the homeowner.

Then, in time, tell-tale signs are seen. Little droppings, discolored trails, proliferating piles of residue appear in corners, on tabletops, little hanging sacs from ceilings – alarming evidence that the grand old dwelling has been invaded. Decidedly unwelcome creatures have made this place their home, and by their very existence will eventually destroy the house and bring it to ruin.

What can be done, when you learn that your house has already been invaded?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

PETA Teams Up With Glenn Beck to Bash Al Gore
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on November 6, 2009 at 5:39 PM.

I know it's easy to get jealous when someone's got an Oscar, a Nobel, and some pretty big job titles on their resume, but really, the Gore bashing has got to end.

The New York Times took a swipe at Al Gore and his new book this week and now Glenn Beck and PETA's Ingrid Newkirk are teaming up. In some ways it is a perfect match between two people who seem to thrive on generating controversy.

Beck chastised Gore for not giving up meat eating altogether (even though he's admitted to cutting back a lot) and told him it was time for soy milk and tofurkey. Then he invited Newkirk on the show to tag team even though Beck admitted that he doesn't agree with a thing PETA says. Although he did give PETA and the NRA a shout out for not catering to special interests (huh?), so I guess Newkirk should feel good about that.

I know that PETA's main task seems to be to get people really pissed off, but I still think it's a shame to see Newkirk sinking so low as to cozy up to Glenn Beck. The truth is though, what they're talking about is actually a tough issue. There's a lot of really good evidence that eating meat -- at least the way we mostly do it in factory farms -- is bad for the planet. If you've ever seen a factory farm (or smelled one) that would probably seem like a no-brainer.

But there's also some good evidence pointing out that growing soy -- at least the way we do it but slashing rainforests and piling on the pesticides -- is actually bad for ecosystems, water, climate and the whole shebang. And some of that soy we area eating (actually in the US 87 percent of it is genetically modified), some of it is being used for biofuel and some of it is being fed to livestock. But mostly all of it is an environmental disaster.

Umbra Fisk from Grist breaks down a lot of the research and writes:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right-Wing "News" Site Falsely Claims Fort Hood Shooter "Advised Obama Transition"
Posted by Staff, Media Matters for America on November 6, 2009 at 4:03 PM.

WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised Obama transition" in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a "participant" in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University's Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right-Bloggers React to Fort Hood Exactly as Expected
Posted by Roy Edroso, Alicublog on November 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM.

FIGHTIN' KEYBOARDERS CALLED BACK INTO ACTION. We'll probably be reading a lot of idiotic stuff about Fort Hood, but it'll be hard to top this from Robert Stacy McCain:

The people who want to kill you are not Tea Party protesters or accountants from Saranac Lake, N.Y. They're not Kentucky populists or Belgian radicals. 

Anyone who wants to distract you from real dangers by telling you to fear this week's pet bogeyman -- global warming! creationists! Ron Paul! -- is not your friend. They are fools and liars who cannot be trusted. They are objectively evil.

The only through-line I can detect in this incoherent gush is this: Liberals are trying to distract you so their friend the Arab terrorist can kill you. So don't shit your pants like they want you to -- shit your pants like Robert Stacy McCain wants you to!

There are other contenders. For example, there's Linda Chavez at Commentary, who attempts to portray President Obama's delivery of planned remarks to a Native American affairs conference before announcing the Fort Hood situation as the equivalent of "President Bush’s 'Pet Goat' moment on 9/11." First of all, Obama was, in the face of crisis, taking care of business rather than, as our last President did, shitting his pants; second, how refreshing to hear a conservative acknowledge there was something weird about "President Bush’s 'Pet Goat' moment on 9/11."

There will be plenty of small-time nutcakes making fools of themselves (like Mad Americans Club, which raves "Obama wants to honor these type of actions with a United States Stamp! USPS New 44-Cent Stamp!!! Celebrates Muslim holiday," apparently referring to this), but the more well-known and respectable rightbloggers are soiling themselves as badly as any of those.

The reason's simple, and the same as it was during 9/11: they think soiling oneself is a sign of patriotism, and consider those who pants are not full of shit to be traitors.

Report: Hasan Snapped Under Weight of Bullying, Anxiety Over Deployment
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 6, 2009 at 8:36 AM.

It goes without saying that the usual suspects would view the tragic events at Fort Hood as an act of terror inspired by "jihadism." A soldier, a Muslim of Palestinian descent, reportedly shouted "God is great!" before opening fire on soldiers awaiting deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.

If one is already inclined to see terrorists lurking beneath one's bed, naturally that's a neat end to the story, and supports whatever simplistic notions about Islam and terrorism one might hold.

Yesterday, as the first sketchy reports started filtering in, I thought that an organized act of political terror was about the least likely scenario to have gone down. (This didn't prevent me from thinking, 'oh, this is not going to go well' when the Major's name was released.)

And as it turns out, unless you're reading Right-wing blogs this morning, it does in fact  appear to be a case of an individual snapping under a variety of stresses.

ABC:

Fort Hood shooting suspect, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, wanted out of the Army after being constantly harassed by others in the military and was called a "camel jockey," his family said.

As Hasan was about to be deployed to Iraq, he was suffering from some of the same stresses that he was trained as an Army psychiatrist to treat.

Although the 39-year-old had just been promoted to major in May, his family says he had hired a lawyer to help him get out of the Armed Forces.

"Apparently became very disgruntled in the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and voiced that to a lot of his colleagues," said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)...

...After the 9/11 attacks, his cousin says he was the target of constant harassment from others in the military. His tormentors called him a "camel jockey," said his cousin, Nader Hasan. He wanted out of the Army, so he paid back his military student loans and hired an attorney.

While the bullying irritated Hasan, Nader Hasan believes his upcoming deployment is what set him off. The cousin said, "My mom is his mom… and we didn't know he was being deployed until we heard it on the news today."

The whole thing is obviously an incredible tragedy. But as Mark Ames -- who wrote the book about this kind of rage-killing -- points out on the front, this was anything but an isolated incident. All kinds of people "go postal."

That this one happened to be a Muslim and a soldier with strong feelings about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only gives those who were already so inclined an opportunity to use a profound tragedy to impugn an entire faith.

Jon Stewart Gets Teary-Eyed Over the Plight of Glenn Beck's Internal Organs
Posted by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet on November 6, 2009 at 7:27 AM.

In the Conservative Movement, the Personal Is Apparently Political
Posted by Roy Edroso, Alicublog on November 5, 2009 at 7:52 AM.

The following, removed from context, reads like excerpts of what a normal reporter might bring back from Election Night victory/defeat parties. So forget for a moment this is by Stephanie Guttman, one of the new skree-bots at The Corner:

In making his concession speech, Democratic governor Jon Corzine was consoling his followers when he said, “My mother is probably the only one that’s happy tonight. She’s a Republican. She’s 93 years old so, we’re not going to worry too much about that.”

 

The line got a big laugh.

When victorious Republican Chris Christie made his victory speech, he told the story of an elderly constituent he met on the campaign trail. “He said to me, ‘I’m 90 years old, and I’m going to vote for you. But you better do what you promise. Because if you don’t, I’m going to vote against you in another four years.’”

And now Guttman twists the lens filter to give you that scary polarized effect:

The line also got a big laugh, but it sounded more joyous, less sneering, and less subtly derisive.

Whu-huh...

Just a straw in the wind, but the Corzine remark mirrors a callousness, a coarse attitude about the “dispensability” of the aged, that one sees in the debate over health-care reform.

Not only do Democrats (even rich ones like Corzine who can afford to keep them in nice homes far away) want to kill their mothers -- they also tell mean, health-care-debate-like jokes about it.

It's what we call in the biz "working blue state."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

MSNBC's Brewer Adopts Anti-Gay Rhetoric
Posted by Jamison Foser, Media Matters for America on November 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM.

Palin to Promote Her Book With Multiple Fox News Interviews: 'Variety Is the Spice of Life.'
Posted by Matt Corley, Think Progress on November 4, 2009 at 9:18 AM.

On her Facebook page yesterday, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin announced that she was "very excited about the upcoming road trip" to promote her book, which will be released later this month. As CNN's Alexander Mooney notes, Palin “hinted she'd likely sit down with a string of friendly faces during the tour that begins in two weeks." Indeed, Palin is hoping to do interviews mainly with Fox News hosts and contributors:

We're in the process of arranging interviews with local and national media. An interview with Oprah Winfrey is already scheduled, and I'm also hoping to have the opportunity to talk with Bill O'Reilly, Barbara Walters, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller, Tammy Bruce, and others, including local Alaska personalities Bob & Mark and Eddie Burke. (Variety is the spice of life!)

As Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) vice presidential running mate in the 2008 election, Palin gave Fox multiple interviews while avoiding other news efforts. Apparently, she plans to follow the same strategy as she promotes her book.

Note to Media Critics: Fox is the Only Entire News Network with a Blatantly Partisan Agenda
Posted by Thers, Whiskey Fire on November 3, 2009 at 4:37 AM.

One Wonders...

... to what extent you have to be either deliberately or genuinely thick in order to write Official Media Criticism. Take this headline, please:

If Fox Is Partisan, It Is Not Alone

My balls. Fox is the only entire news network with a partisan agenda. Every other network plays by different rules. This is not a very difficult point to grasp, unless you have Official Media Criticism to dribble out for the New York Times.

This is a very stupid article. See if you can spot the logical flaw in how John Harwood draws the conclusion that "partisan fragmentation throughout America’s news media and their audiences has grown significantly" based upon Statistical Evidence (and note also how Harwood, toolishly, is passing on the spin of these data thrown, in the manner of a spitball, by a Republican strategist):

In audience surveys from August 2000 to March 2001, Fox News viewers tilted Republican by 44.6 percent to 36.1 percent. More narrowly — 41.4 percent to 39.4 percent — so did the audience for MSNBC. The audiences of CNN, Headline News, CNBC and Comedy Central leaned Democratic.

Four years later, amid the Iraq war and President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, the audience data had shifted. Fox News viewers had become 51 percent Republican and just 30.8 percent Democratic, while MSNBC viewers leaned Democratic by 41.7 percent to 40.4 percent. Viewers of CNN, Headline News, CNBC and Comedy Central grew slightly more Democratic.

By 2008-9, the network audiences tilted decisively, like Fox’s. CNN viewers were more Democratic by 50.4 percent to 28.7 percent; MSNBC viewers were 53.6 percent to 27.3 percent Democratic; Headline News’ 47.3 percent to 31.4 percent Democratic; CNBC’s 46.9 percent to 32.5 percent Democratic; and Comedy Central’s 47.1 to 28.8 percent Democratic.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

John Harwood Draws Delusional Equivalence Between Fox and Other Cable Nets
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 2, 2009 at 11:55 AM.

Writing for The New York Times, John Harwood concludes that everyone in cable news is partisan just like Fox, based on an utterly idiotic misreading of statistics:

...amid the Iraq war and President George W. Bush's re-election campaign, ... Fox News viewers had become 51 percent Republican and just 30.8 percent Democratic, while MSNBC viewers leaned Democratic by 41.7 percent to 40.4 percent. Viewers of CNN, Headline News, CNBC and Comedy Central grew slightly more Democratic.

By 2008-9, the network audiences tilted decisively, like Fox's. CNN viewers were more Democratic by 50.4 percent to 28.7 percent; MSNBC viewers were 53.6 percent to 27.3 percent Democratic; Headline News' 47.3 percent to 31.4 percent Democratic; CNBC's 46.9 percent to 32.5 percent Democratic; and Comedy Central's 47.1 to 28.8 percent Democratic.

Those ... trends track deepening partisan passions and decisions by cable news programmers to amplify strong opinions....

What's wrong with this analysis?

Let's say you're a hardcore alcoholic, of the beer-and-a-shot-and-hit-me-again-barkeep variety; you're fond of serious boozing and brawling. And let's say there are only two watering holes in town: an old-school saloon with a full supply of all the standard varieties of hooch and, across town, the All Girly Drink Cafe.

Which one are you going to go to -- all the time? And which one are you going to avoid -- all the time?

Well, John Harwood would interpret the lack of old-fashioned beer-and-a-shot drunks in the All Girly Drink Cafe as evidence that girly drinks don't contain alcohol.

Of course girly drinks contain alcohol -- just the same way CNN (home to Lou Dobbs) and MSNBC (home to Joe Scarborough) and Headline News (home to Glenn Beck until less than a year ago) and CNBC (epicenter of capitalism porn and site of the notorious Rick Santelli rant) contain conservatism.

But real conservatives want to go where they feel completely at home and can get what they want full strength. So they don't even bother with the other channels -- remember how abysmal Glenn Beck's ratings were at Headline News? -- because they'd rather go where everybody knows their name. In other words, viewership of the other channels isn't skewed Democrat because (MSNBC in prime time excepted) they're so damn liberal; it's skewed because Republicans won't watch these channels.

They're too busy puking in the toilet of the beer-and-a-shot bar that is Fox.

White House Visitors-Logs-Gate Sets Right-Wing KeyStone Cops Running
Posted by Roy Edroso, Alicublog on November 2, 2009 at 4:42 AM.

As you may have heard, the presentation of White House visitor logs for January-July led to some humorous gun-jumping by the usual gang of idiots.

The White House release is incomplete at this time, which I can't approve. (More names are expected later this year.) But I'm heartened that its content suggests the Administration knows how to drive its opposition nuts on purpose.

The White House went out of its way to alert readers that some names recorded in the logs were not those of the people you might think they are -- the visitors Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, for example, were not the famous preacher and radical, respectively.

Some nonetheless scream the news about Ayers and Wright without the explanation, Atlas Shrugs and Don Surber ("A vote for Obama was a vote for Ayers") prominent among them.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »