Dear Mayor Bloomberg, Please Stop Picking on Teen Moms

Whatever choices women make at work and in life, those choices are easier if they delay child-bearing. Having a kid while you are a still a teenager can seriously curtail your options. Which is why it is good news that American teen-pregnancy rates are at historic lows! The rate of teen pregnancy has been falling since 1991 and dropped again dramatically in the last four years.

Keep reading... Show less

Olbermann Rips into the Worst Sellouts on Health Care in Congress

Keith Olbermann calls out Sen. John Thune, Sen. John McCain, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans  -- as well as a few Democrats, too: specifically the "Blue Dogs."

Rachel Maddow Interviews Barack Obama

The second part of the interview can be viewed below:

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

MSNBC Drops Simulcast of Don Imus Show

MSNBC said Wednesday it will drop its simulcast of the "Imus in the Morning" radio program, responding to growing outrage about the radio host's racial slur against the Rutgers women's basketball team.

"This decision comes as a result of an ongoing review process, which initially included the announcement of a suspension. It also takes into account many conversations with our own employees," NBC news said in a statement.

Talk-show host Don Imus triggered the uproar on his April 4 show, when he referred to the mostly black Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." His comments have been widely denounced by civil rights and women's groups.

The decision does not affect Imus' nationally syndicated radio show, and the ultimate decision on the fate of that program will rest with executives at CBS Corp. In a statement, CBS reiterated that Imus will be suspended without pay for two weeks beginning on Monday, and that CBS Radio "will continue to speak with all concerned parties and monitor the situation closely."

MSNBC's action came after a growing list of sponsors -- including American Express Co., Sprint Nextel Corp., Staples Inc., Procter & Gamble Co., and General Motors Corp. -- said they were pulling ads from Imus' show for the indefinite future.

NBC News President Steve Capus said he made the decision after reading thousands of e-mails and having countless discussions with NBC workers and the public, but he denied the potential loss of advertising dollars had anything to do with it.

"I take no joy in this. It's not a particularly happy moment, but it needed to happen," he said. "I can't ignore the fact that there is a very long list of inappropriate comments, of inappropriate banter, and it has to stop."

NBC's decision came at a time when Imus' program on MSNBC was doing better competitively than it ever has been. For the first three months of the year, its audience was nearly identical to CNN's, leading CNN to replace its morning news team last week.

'He's crossed the line'
Calls for Imus' firing from the radio portion of the program have intensified during the past week, and remained strong even after MSNBC's announcment. The show originates from WFAN-AM in New York City and is syndicated nationally by Westwood One, both of which are managed by CBS Corp. MSNBC, which had been simulcasting the show, is a unit of General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal.

Bruce Gordon, former head of the NAACP and a director of CBS Corp., said before MSNBC's decision Wednesday he hoped the broadcasting company would "make the smart decision" by firing Imus.

"He's crossed the line, he's violated our community," Gordon said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "He needs to face the consequence of that violation."

Gordon, a longtime telecommunications executive, stepped down in March after 19 months as head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, one of the foremost U.S. civil rights organizations.

He said he had spoken with CBS chief executive Leslie Moonves and hoped the company, after reviewing the situation, would fire Imus rather than let him return to the air at the end of his suspension.

"We should have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to what I see as irresponsible, racist behavior," Gordon said. "The Imus comments go beyond humor. Maybe he thought it was funny, but that's not what occurred."

A CBS spokesman, Dana McClintock, declined comment on the remarks by Gordon, who is one of at least two minorities on the 13-member board.

The 10 members of the Rutgers team spoke publicly for the first time Tuesday about the on-air comments, made the day after the team lost the NCAA championship game to Tennessee. Some of them wiped away tears as their coach, C. Vivian Stringer, criticized Imus for "racist and sexist remarks that are deplorable, despicable, abominable and unconscionable."

The women, eight of whom are black, agreed to meet with Imus privately and hear his explanation. They held back from saying whether they'd accept Imus' apologies.

Stringer said late Wednesday that she did not call for Imus' firing, but was pleased with the decision by NBC executives.

She said the meeting with Imus was never designed to call for his removal but to give the women on the team the opportunity to meet with him and for him to see the people he had so publicly hurt.

"The young ladies and I needed to put a face behind the remarks... He needs to know who these young ladies are that he hurt," Stringer said.

Imus has apologized repeatedly for his comments. He said Tuesday he hadn't been thinking when making a joke that went "way too far." He also said that those who called for his firing without knowing him, his philanthropic work or what his show was about would be making an "ill-informed" choice.

The Rev. Al Sharpton said in New York that he would put pressure on CBS but that the issue was larger than Imus.

"I think we also have to have now a broad discussion on how the music industry allows this to be used," Sharpton said. "I don't think that we should stop at NBC, and I don't think we should stop at Imus."

Jackson wants more black show hosts
The Rev. Jesse Jackson said he planned to meet with CBS and NBC executives on Thursday with a delegation of other civil rights activists and lawmakers to discuss the Imus situation and diversity in broadcasting.

"Imus is on 1,040 hours a week and yet they have virtually no black show hosts. That is true for other networks as well," Jackson said. "We must raise the ethical standard for all of them."

At the Rutgers campus in New Brunswick, N.J., about 300 students and faculty rallied earlier in the day to cheer for their team, which lost in the national championship game, and add their voices to the crescendo of calls for Imus' ouster. One of the speakers was Chidimma Acholonu, president of the campus chapter of the NAACP.

"This is not a battle against one man. This is a battle against a way of thought," she said. "Don Imus does not understand the power of his words, so it is our responsibility to remind him."

Before the announcement was made, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had appeared on the MSNBC program "Hardball," where host David Gregory asked the senator and presidential candidate if he thought Imus should be fired.

"I don't think MSNBC should be carrying the kinds of hateful remarks that Imus uttered the other day," Obama said.

He went on to note that he and his wife have "two daughters who are African-American, gorgeous, tall, and I hope, at some point, are interested enough in sports that they get athletic scholarships. ... I don't want them to be getting a bunch of information that, somehow, they're less than anybody else. And I don't think MSNBC should want to promote that kind of language."

Obama went on to say that he would not be a guest on Imus' show in the future.

Time to Respond

Editor's note: Read the short interview referred to below, here.

John Cloud doesn’t like me.  Either that, or he doesn’t like being criticized for producing a morally and intellectually indefensible work of journalism and has chosen to respond with a fusillade of personal invective.  You be the judge.

In response to my comments on his admiring profile of Ann Coulter in which he announced that he "didn't find many outright Coulter errors"* based on a casual Google search, available here, Cloud says I:
  • am the left-wing equivalent of [...] Ann Coulter
  • am trying to out-Coulter Coulter
  • am simply insult[ing] him
  • am hid[ing] the fact that it also quotes James Wolcott, Andrew Sullivan, Salon, Ronald Radosh, and even Jerry Falwell criticizing Ann Coulter.  She is called everything from an "ideological huckster of hate" in [his] story to a "skank."  [He] say[s] she can be "callous and mouthy," that [he] wants to "shut her up occasionally," that her writing can be "highly amateurish."  She is called a "fascist," a "polemicist," and--by Radosh--a virtual McCarthyite.
  • want [...]  people to ignore Coulter, to pretend as though she doesn't exist and isn't one of the most loved--and hated--figures on the public scene
  • Made a mistake about a quote of hers in What Liberal Media
  • seem most annoyed that [Time] did not use more of [my] personal "sources" on Ann Coulter
  • [don't] seem to have done any reporting for his item on [him] whatsoever.

    In his interview with CJR Daily available here, he adds:

    "I think Eric Alterman and Ann Coulter engage in the same kind of debate. They don't often make actual arguments.  Instead, they throw names around. This is the point of my article.”

    And ...

    "I think maybe Eric and Ann are in the same bunch. They also, by the way, use the same language."

    To take these one by one may appear a bit tiresome and self-serving, but there are larger issues involved, including, admittedly, defending my reputation, but more importantly, having to do with defending the tenets of honest journalism and fair-minded media criticism.  So I will, as briefly as I can, engage Cloud on the facts:

    Cloud insists that Coulter and I are peas in a pod, guilty of the same sins, up to the same shenanigans.  OK, let’s compare me with Ann Coulter.  True, we both have B.A.s from Cornell, where we both attended many Dead concerts, (though I don’t pretend I refused to partake in the local customs).  More to the point, I went on to earn an M.A. in international relations from Yale and a Ph.D. in U.S. history from Stanford.  I’ve written six books, two published by university presses, containing many thousands of footnotes.  None of these books have been substantially challenged on the basis of the evidence they employ, even by those who strongly disagree with my arguments.  This is not true of Coulter.

    I am also a professor of journalism at the City University of New York, a senior fellow of two think tanks, a professional blogger for the most trafficked internet news site in the world and the media columnist for oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States.  I am pretty sure none of the above is true of Coulter, either.

    What’s more, Coulter has twice either wished for, or joked about the mass murder of American journalists.  She has called for, or joked about, the assassination of a sitting American president.  She has called for, or joked about, the mass murder of entire populations of Moslem nations.  She has referred to the president of the United States and his wife as “pond scum,” among many other things.  She has called Christie Todd Whitman a "birdbrain" and a "dimwit"; Jim Jeffords a "half-wit"; and Gloria Steinem a "deeply ridiculous figure" who "had to sleep" with a rich liberal to fund Ms. magazine--all of which makes her "a termagant."  I have never called publicly for the death of any one, nor joked about anyone’s murder, nor called any president or any senator any names like those listed above, though I admit, not all of them—including the current president—are among my favorite people.

    While Cloud vouches for Coulter’s accuracy, an entire industry has sprung up demonstrating that accuracy plays no role whatever in her work.  You can find dozens, if not hundreds, of lies, mistakes, misattributions, and unsupported allegations in Coulter’s work catalogued here, here, here and here, to name just a few.  Cloud insists that his "job in this story was not to be a fact-checker."  Funny, that’s just exactly the excuse the White House offered in July 2003.  ("The president of the United States is not a fact-checker.”  See The Book on Bush, p.330.)  Well, I always thought Time magazine was pretty proud of its fact-checking capabilities, but OK, that’s quite an admission.  Still it misses the point.  If Cloud could not be bothered with checking the accuracy of Coulter’s work, he should not have vouched for it and his editors should not have  published him doing so.  Deploying the authority of America’s most influential magazine, Cloud declared the work of Ann Coulter to be without “many outright [...] errors."*

    Is it too much to ask, if he isn’t going to fact check Coulter’s work, that he at least check her comments in his own piece?  Cloud explains, "Coulter says profiling makes sense when Muslims have committed virtually all the terrorist attacks against Americans for the past 25 years."  By not pointing out that, for example, the number of terrorist acts against Americans by pro-life radical extremists makes Coulter’s claim false, Cloud is enabling a racist lie that is factually incorrect.

    This is the heart of the scandal of its publication in Time and the reason his name will now be forever synonymous with a kind of craven, dishonest journalism that seeks to apologize for those who hold the values for which Time professes to stand in contempt.  It is not about liberals attacking conservatives nor vice-versa.  For all of Cloud’s attacks on my political orientation, it had nothing to do with my criticisms of his piece.  Those dealt exclusively with Cloud’s journalism.  For some reason he does not seem to get this, so let me spell it out:

    Nobody really cares about Mr. Cloud personally, or the fact that he found Ms. Coulter so charming and "ironic" sipping her white Bordeaux and throwing her blonde locks back as she downed her Nicorette.  The issue that engages those of us who are invested in protecting and defending the honesty and integrity of American journalism is that Mr. Cloud has used the powerful and influential pages of Time magazine to declare Ms. Coulter’s work mostly accurate ("didn't find many outright Coulter errors"*) while admitting that neither he, nor Time’s minions, did the necessary work to defend that pronouncement.

    We can debate the meaning of the word “lie” and whether it can apply to a false description. As the author of a doctoral dissertation and a 450 or so page book containing over 1,400 footnotes spread over 91 pages on the topic of presidential lies, and a member of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, I like to think my vote should carry some weight when I say "yes."  But I admit the point is arguable.  What is not arguable is that Ann Coulter’s work cannot be fairly described as without "many outright [...] errors"* by anyone with a modicum of respect for rules of evidence or the simple meaning of words.  Again, I refer you to the countless examples listed above, not merely in What Liberal Media, but in Tapped, Media Matters, Spinsanity, Salon and many, many others.

    Cloud also complains that I did no independent reporting on Coulter for my item.  This is silly.  I’ve known Coulter since 1996, and worked with Coulter virtually every day for more than a year on MSNBC, before she was fired.  I first published a column about her in September of 2002.  I published half a chapter plus an entire appendix in a book that came out in 2003.  Demonstrating that Cloud’s ability to think and reason had been befogged by his apparent attraction to Coulter’s "irony" did not require any additional reporting on my part.  That is, dare I explain it again, exactly the point.  All of the evidence was available to Cloud when he wrote the piece, just as it was available to me.  He chose to ignore it.  I didn’t.  This is not about “my personal sources” about Coulter, as he implies—once again casting aspersions on my motives without any personal knowledge.  (To tell you the truth, I don’t even know what he means by my “personal sources.”)  Rather, it’s an argument about the accuracy of Coulter’s statements and of Cloud’s—but more importantly Time’s—willingness to vouch for them.  Why is that so hard for Cloud to understand?

    A few smaller points.  Cloud says I ignore the fact that he quoted some people who didn’t like Ann.  Well, true, but he wrote a 5,800 word piece and I wrote a short blog item. Naturally I could not deal with all of it.  (And quoting people calling her names like “skank” does not, in my idea, substitute for examining her accuracy.)  In any case, if Time (or Cloud) wants to take the time and do the necessary research to critique all 5,800 words,  I’d be happy to do so ... for $25,000.

    Cloud says I misquoted Coulter’s attack on a legless Vietnam veteran in What Liberal Media? Well, I am willing to believe this might be the case, as I did not have Time’s army of researchers and fact-checkers at my disposal and everyone makes mistakes.  But I’m afraid he’s going to have to provide some evidence.  What Liberal Media? has nearly a thousand footnotes.  Cloud’s article has none.  What’s more, I was in the studio at MSNBC when the incident took place.  (There was cheering.)  True, I didn’t hear it, and never claimed to, and even if I had, I might have misremembered it.  Evidence is a much trickier matter than Cloud seems to understand.  My own source who claimed to have heard it might have been mistaken as well.  But I know Cloud wasn’t there and unless he’s watched a videotape—and I’m not sure I’d trust his word even there—I’ll wait until the point is proven.  (Though I must admit I don’t think it makes much moral difference.)  In any case, if Cloud can provide or point me to a tape, I’ll be happy to correct future editions of my book.  If not, well, I’ll have to judge his assertion based on the level of accuracy of the rest of his piece.  (Howie Kurtz however, appears to have a different story to tell here.)

    Cloud says I want people to ignore Coulter.  Well, yes, this is true.  There are any number of people, I suppose, who want to kill Arabs, joke about murdering New York Times journalists and American journalists serving in Iraq, who call people vicious names, even during their funerals, who mock legless veterans, and who lie with impunity about those with whom they disagree.  It would be a better world if we ignored all of them.  I wrote about Coulter for a while in the hopes of demonstrating that a person who employed such practices had no business being embraced as a respectable voice in the mainstream media, and then I stopped.  I did what I could and moved on.  Now, the least I can do is remain consistent to my own personal principles by refusing to debate or appear with Coulter.  I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what Cloud thinks is the problem here.

    Cloud notes to CJR, that Hitler and Stalin have also been on the cover of Time.  Excuse me, but why is he bringing up Hitler and Stalin?  Nobody else has.  Isn’t that the kind of thing the left is always being accused of doing?  Reels the mind ...

    Finally, Cloud throws in a great many personal insults toward me and toward David Brock in the hopes of deflecting the criticism he has received of his work.  My guess is that this is his first experience in receiving public criticism and he will grow to regret the intemperance of his remarks.  In the meantime, even if his wild charges were accurate, they would do nothing to exonerate his article.  I will let Brock speak for himself and he does so very well here.  But I should also like to point out that for all Cloud’s angry and unsupported accusations about me, the reader will note that I have not called him a single name.  Nor have I attributed a single unspoken motive to him.  In fact, I never even noticed him at all before the story was e-mailed to me by Time’s PR person on Sunday morning.  All of my comments have been directed toward Cloud’s indefensible work of journalism and the damage that Time’s publication of it has done to our profession and to the cause of honest and honorable political discourse in the United States.

    *CORRECTION:  An earlier draft incorrectly quoted Mr. Cloud as using the expression "mostly accurate." His actual phrase was he "didn't find many outright Coulter errors."  I regret this mistake but it changes nothing in either my larger argument or Cloud's. Also, an earlier version of Altercation appeared without Cloud's letter. That was the result of an editorial miscommunication. I had always intended to include it and said as much when it was received.

Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Alternet All Access and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.