For anyone watching Fox News in the weeks leading up to this year's off-year election, it should have been apparent what was afoot on the conservative network.

In the two weeks leading up to their November 3 elections, Conservative Party congressional candidate Doug Hoffman (NY-23), New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie, and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell appeared on Fox News and its personalities' radio shows at least 16 times for live interviews lasting a total of 114 minutes and 36 seconds.

As leading Republican politicians and activists celebrated Fox News' role in pushing just the right message and helping their electoral chances, two Fox News employees spent time fundraising and recruiting volunteers in support of GOP-backed candidates. Fox News host Mike Huckabee used network airtime to collect email addresses for his PAC, which in turn used the addresses to recruit volunteers for GOP candidates on Tuesday's ballot, including McDonnell and Hoffman. Meanwhile, Fox News contributor Karl Rove was shilling for the Republican Governors' Association to help Christie's bid in New Jersey. All the while, Fox continued to feature his spin of that same election.

So, Fox News gave Republican candidates a huge platform to communicate with conservative activists and voters while Fox News employees recruited volunteers and raised money for them.

What else did Fox need to check off the list before Election Day? How about telling people how to vote and pre-spinning Democratic Party losses before a single ballot had been counted? Check.

One Fox News graphic actually stated that if the GOP were to win the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey -- races with no direct influence over congressional efforts to reform health care -- it would mean "no gov't-run option" in health care reform.

Sean Hannity, Fox News' apparent GOP get-out-the-vote captain, went all out advising his radio listeners how to cast their votes, telling one caller to his radio show, "Don't forget -- go vote for Christie tomorrow in New Jersey. All right?" and his New Jersey audience in general, "get to the polls" and "stop Obama-care in its tracks." On his Fox News program, Hannity told Hoffman, "I hope I'm on the air this time tomorrow night and I'll be able to declare you the winner." Marching to Hannity's tune, CNN's Lou Dobbs declared Hoffman was "change [he] can believe in" while Fox News' Bill O'Reilly piled on predicting a Hoffman win.

But what if -- right-wing media fear of fears! -- Democrats were to pull off a victory in New Jersey? Well, there'd be just one thing to explain it -- cue the ominous music -- Voter Fraud.

Rush Limbaugh warned his audience that "fraudsters" at ACORN, SEIU, and the New Black Panthers would try to affect elections on Tuesday and that "tomorrow's going to be a dry run for Democrat mischief and malfeasance, getting ready for 2010 and 2012." Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com took the bait, baselessly -- and predictably -- accusing progressives of trying to "steal" the New Jersey governor's seat. As did Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund who fabricated evidence of voter fraud in New Jersey and anonymously sourced voter fraud innuendo. Completing the circle, Limbaugh echoed Fund's baseless accusation warning of an "ACORN factor" and a "vote fraud factor."

Fox News hosts and political analysts capped off Election Day celebrating and shilling for conservative and GOP candidates. When the dust settled, Republicans had won the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial contests while Democrats had won the open New York congressional seat -- a seat targeted by tea-partiers and not held by a Democrat in nearly 150 years.

While Fox News' Brit Hume acknowledged that "Barack Obama was not a central issue" in New Jersey -- exit polls decisively showed he wasn't an issue in any of the targeted races -- others in the conservative media were blind to the readily available exit polls. Hume's Fox colleague O'Reilly said the New Jersey governor's race was a referendum on Obama. El Rushbo dismissed the exit polls entirely, saying the governors' races were all "about Obama" and that the election results show "[t]here is no question this is an anti-Obama vote."

Fox & Friends graphics described the election results as "shockwaves," "winds of change," a "Republican revival," and a "blueprint for success." In a truly odd attempt at spin, Fox News declared that the results meant "Obamacare" was dead, while its sister network, Fox Business, claimed the markets "like[d]" "Big GOP Wins In NJ & VA."

So, exit polls said Obama had nothing to do with Democratic losses in New Jersey and Virginia, where, incidentally, the GOP nominees downplayed their right-wing positions -- and this is good news for Republicans?

What about Hoffman, the unambiguously right-wing Conservative party candidate in New York who conservative media types spent weeks hyping? How would Fox News and company spin his loss of a seat, again, not held by a Democrat in far more than 100 years?

In an attempt to paint Democratic Party victor Owens as a conservative, thus explaining away his win in a historically GOP district, right-wing bloggers sought to highlight the "under-reported fact" that he "campaigned against the public option" even though Owens had expressed support for a public option since September.

Limbaugh blamed "party bosses and these big thinkers like Newt [Gingrich]," who "screwed the whole thing up," while leaping to the defense of Sarah Palin, who had championed Hoffman. Limbaugh asserted that Palin "is not damaged at all" by the loss of her candidate. And in an about-face only fitting for someone of Limbaugh's ego - err ... stature -- the conservative talker switched his stance on "moral" victories, which he'd lambasted Democrats for in 2006, declaring Hoffman had a "good showing."

So, yes, if one thing is clear after the 2009 off-year election, it's this: Conservative media figures haven't a clue when it comes to election analysis.

Oh and one last note on Tuesday's election, did you hear the nasty anti-Obama election night story that Fox News concocted out of thin air? The conservative cable outlet reported, remember this is not true, that President Obama watched an HBO documentary about himself, rather than following the election results. A story so grand -- gosh the president is such a narcissist! -- that the fact-challenged liberal media bias hunters at Newsbusters wet themselves over it before eventually conceding that Fox News had "misreported" the incident -- a nice way of saying "made it up."

I guess, in addition to the analysis, they haven't a clue when it comes to reporting either.

This Week's Media Columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert looks at the myth of Fox News' ratings spike; and Jamison Foser takes on Howard Kurtz's bogus conflict-of-interest defense.

Greg Lewis notes that for conservatives, $400 million buys them defeat at the ballot box in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and MySpace

Media Matters maintains active online communities on the nation's leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and MySpace, and join in the discussion.

Do you listen to podcasts? Try the Media Matters Minute

For months, radio shows and stations across the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (iTunes / RSS) to the Minute's daily podcast, hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled and edited by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign-up to receive his columns by email.

A statement released by Dave Checketts -- a member of the group seeking to buy the Rams and the chairman of the NHL's St. Louis Blues -- said Limbaugh was dropped because his "involvement ... has become a complication ... endangering our bid."

"Complication" sure is a nice way of putting what transpired this week.

In the week since El Rushbo confirmed his intention to help buy the Rams: the executive director of the NFL players union came out against Limbaugh's bid, saying football "overcomes division and rejects discrimination"; Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said he "couldn't even think of" supporting Limbaugh's Rams bid due to his divisive rhetoric; NFL players reportedly said they "wouldn't play for" a Limbaugh-owned team due to his "flat-out racist" comments; NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Limbaugh's "divisive comments are not what the N.F.L. is all about"; and a host of sports media figures blasted the very notion of the right-wing talker being an NFL owner based on his controversial statements.

As you might imagine, Limbaugh didn't take the controversy surrounding the bid or his ultimate exclusion from the group seeking to buy the Rams lying down.

Attempting to defend himself from mounting criticism, Limbaugh said -- with a straight face, no less -- "I'm colorblind. ... I treat everybody equally." Of course, such a statement ignores his "colorblind" history of racially charged comments. Who could forget these gems?

• "We are being told that we have to hope [President Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black." [1/21/09]

• "I do believe" Obama is an "angry black guy." [7/27/09]

• "Obama's entire economic program is reparations." [7/22/09]

• Obama is "Halfrican-American." [7/24/07]

Or my personal favorite: the time Limbaugh invented a "racial component" to Iraq war vet Paul Hackett's decision to withdraw from a Democratic primary campaign for U.S. Senate in Ohio. Yep, after Hackett's departure from the race against then-Rep. Sherrod Brown, Rush said, "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too." In fact, Brown is white.

One needn't dig too far back -- Rush was happy to offer more racially charged statements this week. For starters, he whined that the NFL was an "outpost of racism and liberalism," apparently missing last month's report by the Center for Responsive Politics that showed that since 1989, NFL teams, owners, players and personnel gave overwhelmingly to the GOP.

In what can only be described as an odd attempt to beat back criticism for his past remarks, Limbaugh turned to basketball, complaining that rappers "own parts of NBA teams" and "[t]hey're celebrated -- 'Cool, daddy, cool!' " He even said that acclaimed sportscaster "Bob Costas is a ... very unhappy little diva." Is it any wonder that the world of professional athletics resoundingly rejected El Rushbo, dashing his dream of team ownership?

Limbaugh's defensive line was quick to come to his aid. Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said NFL players would pick Rush over "Nazi collaborator" George Soros because "a lot of them" are "real Christians" -- as opposed to fake ones? MSNBC's resident cranky uncle and in-house bigot Pat Buchanan played defense, as well, which unsurprisingly resulted in more bigotry.

The Wall Street Journal came to Rush's defense with an op-ed making a ... I'll just say it -- stupid false comparison between Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann's work on NBC's Football Night in America. The Journal claimed not to have "heard anyone on the right say Mr. Olbermann's nightly ad-hominem rants should disqualify him from hanging around the NFL." Perhaps the Journal could use a hearing test, because various right-wing media figures and bloggers have done just that.

So, no, El Rushbo won't be purchasing a pro football team any time soon. He could always try his "formerly nicotine-stained" hand (or "fingers," as he would say) at owning a fantasy football team.

Then again, he's got the 2010 Miss America pageant to look forward to, where he'll be serving as a judge.

Other major stories this week

Fox News vs. The White House

Be sure to check out the latest from Media Matters' Eric Boehlert, who offers up a compelling "memo to the media," which reads, in part:

Fox News has changed the rules. Now the press needs to change the way it covers Fox News.

Rupert Murdoch's cable cabal is now, first and foremost, a political entity. Fox News has transformed itself into the Opposition Party of the Obama White House, which, of course, is unprecedented for a media company in modern-day America. That partisan embrace means the news media have to expand beyond typing up Fox News-ratings-are-up and the White-House-is-angry stories, and it needs to start treating the cable channel for what it is: a partisan animal.

The press needs to drop its longstanding gentleman's agreement not to write about other news outlets as news players -- not to get bogged down in criticizing the competition -- because those newsroom rules no longer apply. Fox News has exited the journalism community this year. It's a purely political player, and journalists ought to start covering it that way.

I understand Fox News still wants to enjoy the benefits of being seen as a news operation. It still wants the trappings and the professional protections that go with it. But it no longer functions as a news outlet, so why does the rest of the press naively treat it that way?

Fox News is now at the forefront of a political movement.

[...]

Completely detached from traditional newsroom standards, Fox News has become a political institution, and the press needs to start treating it that way. The press needs to treat Fox News the same way it treats the Republican National Committee, even though, frankly, the RNC probably can't match the in-your-face partisanship that Fox News flaunts 24/7. Think about it: Murdoch's "news" channel now out-flanks the Republican Party when it comes to ceaseless partisan attacks on the White House.

Truth is, in recent years the RNC used to use Fox news to help amplify the partisan raids that national Republicans launched against Democrats. It was within the RNC that the partisan strategy was mapped out and initiated. (i.e. it was the RNC that first pushed the Al-Gore-invented-the-Internet smear). But it was on talk radio and Fox News where the partisan bombs got dropped. Today, that relationship has, for the most part, been inversed. Now it's within Fox News that the partisan witch hunts are plotted and launched, and it's the RNC that plays catch-up to Glenn Beck and company.

And I'm sorry, but the Fox News defense that it's a just a few on-air pundits who (relentlessly) attack the White House and that the news team still plays it straight is, at this point, a joke. What kind of "news" team, in the span of five days, airs 22 clips of health reform forums featuring only people who oppose reform? What kind of "news" team tries to pass off a GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all? What kind of "news" team promotes a partisan political rally? (Or did I miss the 100-plus free ads that CNN aired in 2003 promoting an anti-war rally?)

[...]

It's clear that in 2009, Fox News is no longer in the business of journalism. Fox News isn't trying to inform people, it's trying to misinform them. That's not journalism. It's propaganda. But as long as the press continues to hold up the façade of journalism, Fox News will try to hide behind it.

Boehlert's takedown of Fox News can be read in its entirety here.

We're through Dobbs' foggy looking glass (or camera lens)

CNN's Lou Dobbs is none too pleased with his critics. At issue is a new television commercial from Media Matters and America's Voice that was to air during CNN's broadcast of its upcoming Latino in America special. In what appeared to be talking points prepared in the style of Mad Libs, Dobbs denounced the ad, claiming it was created by "George Soros attack groups" as "propaganda."

CNN, for its part, refused to run the ad -- skipping out on yet another opportunity to provide some accountability and distance itself from its ongoing Dobbs problem. In August, Media Matters bought a week of ad time on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News in Washington, D.C., New York, and Atlanta to air an ad calling on CNN to address Dobbs' repeated promotion of birther conspiracy theories. As The Huffington Post reported at the time, "[F]ive of the six cable providers contracted for the project have informed the group that they are declining to put the spot on CNN."

Dobbs was in rare form this week in going after his critics. He decried the "mad propaganda emanating ... from the extreme left, the Media Matters folks, all of them funded by George Soros" and complained to Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) that "left-wing ethnocentric interest groups" are "calling for my firing from CNN." You know what happens when you point a finger, right, Lou? That's right: Three are pointing back at you.

Firing or reining in Dobbs may be a moot point anyway. According to recent reports, Dobbs met with Fox News president Roger Ailes over dinner last month. Could Dobbs be taking his immigrant-smearing hysteria and loony quest for Obama's already-available birth certificate to Fox Business Network?

We do agree with this one, perhaps Freudian, comment Dobbs made this week: "It's getting so you can't trust cable networks anymore."

EXCLUSIVE: CNN's Castellanos on the take from insurance industry

This week, Media Matters exclusively obtained evidence that CNN contributor Alex Castellanos' political consulting firm, National Media, is the ad buyer for the new ad blitz by the insurance industry group America's Health Insurance Plan (AHIP) that attacks Democratic health care reform plans.

According to the detailed ad buy information obtained by Media Matters, Castellanos is responsible for placing, beginning October 11, more than $1 million of AHIP advertising in five states. A review of National Media's client list indicates that Castellanos' work for AHIP isn't his only conflict with regard to health care reform. National Media has done work for the Federation of American Hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry group PhRMA, and the HCA Sunrise Hospital. Castellanos last appeared on CNN September 30; during a debate with Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) on The Situation Room, Castellanos defended Republican health care proposals.

After noting CNN's responsibility to properly identify Castellanos' industry ties and ensure that his obvious conflict of interest does not tarnish the network's future coverage of the health care debate, Washington Post Co.'s Greg Sargent reported that CNN admitted that Castellanos worked for the health insurance industry and promised full disclosure in the future.

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: in a message to the media, Eric Boehlert says Fox News is now the opposition party, Jamison Foser discusses if Dr. Fox-enstein -- errr ... Roger Ailes is building another monster.

Simon Maloy notes Rush Limbaugh's fantasy football conspiracy in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, and Digg

Media Matters maintains active online communities on the nation's leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, and Digg and join in the discussion.

Do you listen to podcasts? Try the Media Matters Minute

For months now, radio shows and stations throughout the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (iTunes/RSS) to the Minute's daily podcast hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled and edited by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.

With Halloween just around the corner, Fox News president Roger Ailes -- a former Republican communications guru -- is looking more and more like the news industry's Dr. Frankenstein. For months now, he has been putting the finishing touches on his first monster, Fox News Channel, just as its bride, Fox Business Network, is showing signs of life.

His main tactic has been all too apparent: steal conservative media figures from real news networks like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC in order to build something new from the pieces -- something that only superficially resembles a legitimate news outlet.

Last spring, conspiracy-loving crybaby Glenn Beck claimed that Ailes wooed him over to Fox News from CNN Headline News by stressing the conservative network's opposition to the president. Beck even told one newspaper that Ailes had likened Fox News' battle against Obama to the Alamo.

Then there was Tucker Carlson in May. Fresh off yet another canceled show -- first with CNN and then with MSNBC -- and a brief stint on ABC's Dancing With The Stars, the conservative man-boy cable host known for his bow-tie fetish landed with a bang at Fox News, declaring, "I've waited a long time to get here."

Luring two big right-wing names to Fox News Channel's roster allowed Ailes to focus on Fox Business Network, his answer to NBC Universal's successful business news outlet, CNBC.

Since its launch in late 2007, Fox Business has been plagued with horrible ratings. In fact, CNBC sometimes outperformed the new conservative business outlet by a margin of 10-to-1. It's hardly surprising, then, that Ailes has turned his focus to the struggling network.

Just last month, Fox Business announced that it would begin carrying a weekday simulcast of Don Imus' radio program. Imus is, of course, far better known for his long history of outrageous and at times racist and sexist comments than for his business-reporting chops. In fact, he'll likely represent the word "business" in his new employer's name about as well as his new colleagues represent the word "news" in Fox News Channel.

Imus comes to Fox Business from the little-known and little-watched RFD-TV, his television home following his high-profile firing from MSNBC and CBS radio in 2007 for referring to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos."

September would prove to be a barn burner of a month for Ailes. In addition to Imus, John Stossel, a correspondent for the ABC newsmagazine 20/20, also announced his intention to join Fox Business. Stossel will no doubt feel right at home -- he has a long history of denying the scientific reality of global climate change and promoting a cornucopia of right-wing myths and distortions. So much so that Fox's Chris Wallace described Stossel as a "very natural fit at Fox because he is a contrarian, and he's a conservative."

So what's next for Fox Business? Well, according to recent reports, CNN's immigrant-bashing conspiracy theorist Lou Dobbs met with Ailes over dinner last month. Could Dobbs be taking his loony quest for President Obama's already-available birth certificate to Fox Business? It seems plausible. Years before CNN turned over its airwaves to Dobbs for his nightly broadcasts of immigrant-smearing hysteria and right-wing fringe causes of the day, Dobbs was something of a respected financial news anchor.

Surely, Imus, Stossel, and Dobbs won't be enough to breathe new life into Ailes' monster bride of a network. He's going to need a few more high-profile names before he's able to shout "It's alive!" from the rooftops. But who?

Perhaps Ailes could sign Michael Savage, the third-highest-rated radio host in America, who was fired by MSNBC in 2003 for describing a caller as "a sodomite" and telling him to "get AIDS and die." While he's at it, he could also snatch up Pat Buchanan, the former CNN and MSNBC host who currently serves as resident cranky uncle and political commentator for the latter. Surely, they could use someone with his decades-long history of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, defending of Hitler, and whitewashing of the Holocaust.

We might as well refer to Ailes as Dr. Fox-enstein at this point. After all, his relentless abuse of the journalistic form is just as frightening as Shelley's chilling fictional tale of scientific experimentation run amok -- perhaps more so.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.

But sadly, Obama's words failed to touch the hearts of some of the world's most esteemed and principled critics and commentators, all of whom have proven their love for America and her values time and again. I'm kidding of course.

After resolutely working to undermine Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympic Games and then roundly applauding the International Olympic Committee's decision to eliminate the U.S. city from competition, the right-wing media responded with furor to the Nobel Committee's decision. "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota," wrote Erick Erickson at the conservative RedState, who just last week had laughed at the idea that Obama had improved America's standing in the world.

"He's sided with Marxists Castro, Chavez, Morales and Ortega. ... Obama's bankrupted the US economy and destroyed the morale of our military," chimed in Gateway Pundit, another right-wing blogger. "No wonder he was awarded the Nobel." A poll question on Lou Dobbs' website expressed shock at the fact that the award had gone to "Our Supreme Leader." Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade (the brown-haired-guy-who-isn't-Steve-Doocy) suggested that Obama had delayed making a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan in order to win the award, even though the White House said it was unaware that Obama had even been nominated. "The World Apology Tour yields dividends," succinctly wrote prominent right-wing blogger and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin.

Indeed, the idea that Obama had been rewarded for deliberately weakening the United States was soon a central theme from the right. "They [the Nobel Committee] love a weakened, neutered U.S, and this is their way of promoting that concept," radio host Rush Limbaugh said in an email to Politico. "Obama did make a big show of appeasing Iran during its election crisis," added conservative blogger Ed Morrissey. "Perhaps they should change the award's name to the Neville rather than the Nobel."

The volume emanating from the right quickly impacted more mainstream reporters. Time's Simon Robinson penned an online piece explaining how the award could prove politically harmful to the president, and Nancy Gibbs wrote a widely circulated article for Time as well, this one explaining why the Nobel was "the last thing [Obama] needs." She's right... we all know the Nobel Prize is something that should be avoided, you know, like cancer. Sigh.

It wasn't long before the calls started for Obama to turn down the award, from a variety of sources. Malkin, CBS' Chip Reid, Time's Mark Halperin, John Bolton, Slate.com's Mickey Kaus, The Weekly Standard's Mary Katharine Ham, and The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg all echoed the theme, among others.

"[H]e has to turn it down -- because it is such a joke -- that he'll turn it down and it's the only way for him make a win out of this," said Fox News' Glenn Beck. "Only his arrogance will stop him from doing it." For his part, Beck had an explanation for what was really going on, as well as a suggestion for who Obama could hand the award over to.

"These progressives are extraordinarily powerful," he explained, channeling conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. "And this campaign of Barack Obama, this global campaign for Barack Obama, is done by global interests that have extraordinary power. They're very well connected."

In what had to be a highlight of his lunacy, Beck continued: "The Nobel Peace Prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and given -- you ready for this? Oh, this one's gonna make headlines -- should be given to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project." This makes sense, seeing as that the undeniable currents of racism, violence, and xenophobia the Tea Party "movement" embodies represent the very essence of what Alfred Nobel's prize is all about. Sigh, again.

But at the end of the day, it was El Rushbo who really made headlines. It turned out that the Taliban was also against the Nobel Committee's decision, something that didn't give Limbaugh a moment's pause.

"I think that everybody is laughing" he said. "Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban."

Speak for yourself, Rush.

Other Major Stories This Week

Limbaugh again trying to Ram his way into the NFL

Almost six years to the day after radio host Rush Limbaugh resigned in disgrace from his brand-spanking new gig on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown for, as CNN reported at the time, "his statement that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed," El Rushbo confirmed this week that he's interested in buying the St. Louis Rams.

Seriously.

In a statement released to KMOX News Radio, Limbaugh said he and others were "part of a bid to buy the Rams and we are continuing the process. But I can say no more because of a confidentiality clause in our agreement with Goldman Sachs. We cannot and will not talk about our partners. But if we prevail we will be the operators of the team."

In response to the news, numerous sports journalists and figures -- including contributors to ESPN, where Limbaugh was briefly employed -- have criticized the idea of Limbaugh as an owner, often noting Limbaugh's history of racially incendiary remarks.

CBSsports.com's Mike Freeman said, "my head exploded after hearing this Limbaugh news. ... Limbaugh is a pungent bowl of stark raving bigoted lunacy." Former NFL receiver Keenan McCardell struck a similar tone, saying, "Limbaugh would definitely hurt" the Rams, "the way he talks makes me think he's a racist," while the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Bryan Burwell said, "Limbaugh's American Dream is a potential nightmare waiting to happen for the Rams."

If anyone thought Limbaugh would try to placate concerns over his potential ownership of professional football team by softening his tone, they'd be no doubt mistaken. Just two days after confirming his interest in the Rams, Limbaugh told his audience that basketball was "the favorite sport of gangs." But hey, it wasn't a dig against football, right?

It's not surprising then that NFL players are reportedly saying they "wouldn't play for" a Limbaugh-owned team due to his "flat-out racist" comments.

Here are ten reasons players and fans are justifiably worried.

Right-wing media swine push H1N1 vaccine conspiracy

If you wind up getting the H1N1 virus, you can blame Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. OK, not exactly. But they certainly are doing their best to stir up fears that the H1N1 vaccine is potentially harmful, that shots will be mandatory and that it is all somehow part of a government plot to control people. Which means millions of followers will likely forego getting the recommended vaccine and thus the flu will become an even greater public health problem.

Limbaugh's fearmongering on the vaccine is rooted in his continued effort to oppose the administration over anything at anytime. Following the administration's suggestion that everyone get vaccinated, Limbaugh said on his Wednesday program: "I'm not seeing these mass deaths from the swine flu." He added: "All I see is a bunch of typical government panic and hype." Limbaugh continued:

Who put the notion that you gotta have this shot, or this nasal spray -- whatever the hell the vaccine is -- whoever the hell put in your head the notion that you gotta do it? Government did. The Obama government, to be specific. It is one of my fervent objectives and goals ... to convince as many people as possible that the damn government is not God, and nobody in it even comes close to being as competent as you are to run your life. And yet, 'Oh my God, the government report says ...' The next time you hear 'The government says...' don't believe it. You'll be healthier, trust me.

Sounding a bit like a 13-year-old who has just been told he has to be home by 10 p.m., Limbaugh attacked HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for encouraging everyone to get the shot telling her, "Screw you, Ms. Sebelius! I am not going to take it, precisely because you're now telling me I must. It's not your role, it's not your responsibility, and you do not have that power. I don't want to take your vaccine. I don't get flu shots."

Limbaugh later took his ball and went home, stating, "I'm just like -- I'm a contrarian, I'm a non-conformist -- you have some idiot government official demanding, telling me I must take this vaccine. I'll never take it."

As one might expect, Beck's fearmongering about the vaccine is a little less contrarian and a lot more crazy. Beck has been raising "questions" about the vaccine - thus suggesting it is anything but safe - for the last couple weeks. Last month on his radio show, Beck said:

I am not willing to go on the air with anything because one thing that you get wrong on this and it -- it can lead to a lot of death one way or another, you know? If you say, 'Don't take the swine flu vaccination,' and then it turns out that the swine flu this particular wave is virulent and the vaccination would have helped, well then, you know, what role did I play in that? The opposite is true; I say, 'Everybody take the vaccination,' and that turns out to be deadly, what role did I play in that? I'm just not willing to do that.

Not to burst your giant head, Glenn, but if the vaccine turns out to be "deadly," I'm sure people will direct their concerns elsewhere. That is, if society is still intact. On the other hand, if people don't get the vaccine because you suggested not to and they get sick, and God forbid, die from the flu, well, that's on you, Glenn.

But Beck loves conspiracy theories, and thus devoted his October 8 show to debunking some crazy Internet rumors - thus giving them unnecessary air time -- about the government implanting microchips in people via the H1N1 vaccine.  He ultimately concluded that the government is not doing this -- shocking -- but said that such chips exist and people should be watching the government and the corporation developing the chips to make sure it doesn't happen in the future.

In a telling conversation on Thursday night's O'Reilly Factor, Beck homophobia in the hopes of political gain, launching an all-out attack against Kevin Jennings, an official with the Department of Education official. The right has claimed that 21 years ago, when Jennings was a 24-year-old teacher at Concord Academy in Massachusetts, he "cover[ed] up statutory rape" by not reporting to authorities a conversation he had with a student who told him about being involved with an "older man."

Media Matters disproved the heart of that right-wing tale last Friday conclusively showing that the former student in question was 16 in 1988, the legal age of consent in Massachusetts both then and now.

And yet this week, the attacks continued, many of which displayed the right's stunning ability to completely ignore reality whenever it sees fit. A Washington Times editorial pushed the idea that Jennings "violated Massachusetts law" over 20 years ago by "covering up" sexual misconduct. In other words, the Times was still reporting a lie 48 hours after it had been publicly disproven.

Two days later, Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator wrote yet another piece claiming that Brewster was 15 years old. At this point, the story had been dead for four days, but it didn't matter. After one of Lord's readers noted that the issue had already been resolved, Lord still wasn't convinced. "If Jennings provides that fact and can document it," he wrote, "we will be happy to correct." (He apparently doesn't consider a driver's license to be a legal document.) Doubling down, Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York made the same fallacious accusation on the same day.

The baseless attacks continued. Fox News' Sean Hannity pushed a fabricated link between Jennings and NAMBLA, while Rush Limbaugh said that Obama had empowered "child abusers" and "perverts." The Fox Nation website called Jennings "lewd."

It wasn't long before the real motivation behind the right-wing media's passion was made all too clear. On October 6, the right began targeting Chai Feldblum, a lesbian who has been an outspoken advocate for gay rights. She is currently President Obama's nominee to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Feldblum is a signatory to a 2006 statement entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" which argues that "marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The statement is entirely unrelated to the duties Feldblum would have as an EEOC commissioner, which include enforcement of existing federal laws involving job discrimination and providing oversight of federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

But this doesn't matter to the Right, which immediately twisted Feldblum's words beyond recognition. A WorldNetDaily article stated that with the 2006 document, she had praised polygamy, a falsehood. And it only got worse from there.

"I'm telling you, the entire federal government is going to have to be fumigated some day when these deviants and degenerates are finally sent packing" wrote WND editor and CEO Joseph Farah. The website CatholicOnline.org also published anti-Feldblum pieces. One, written by Deacon Keith Fournier, claimed that Feldblum "actually believes that the protections provided under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution have become outdated," an absurd charge.

"In short," read an editorial from the Traditional Values Coalition published on RightSideNews.com, "she wants the gay agenda to trump the First Amendment and religious freedom to impose the gay agenda on all Americans -- including those with strongly held religious beliefs about homosexuality."

The witch hunt goes on, and as it does, the words of Joseph Welch, whose dramatic chastisement of Senator Joseph McCarthy helped to end his immoral campaign, seem to ring louder every day: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"  

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert looks at The New York Times' pointless pursuit of right-wing "buzz" stories; Jamison Foser says The New Republic should apologize for publishing Betsy McCaughey's dishonest assault on Clinton health care reform efforts in the '90s; and Karl Frisch declares "all aboard" as the right's Fox News gravy train rolls on.

Greg Lewis predicts the future health of St. Louis Rams players and fans if Rush Limbaugh buys the team in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace and Digg

Media Matters maintains active online communities on the nation's leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace and Digg and join in on the discussion.

Do you listen to podcasts? Try the Media Matters Minute

For months now, radio shows and stations throughout the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (iTunes / RSS) to the Minute's daily podcast hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.

Special thanks to this week's contributors: Brian Frederick and John V. Santore.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled and edited by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube or sign-up to receive his columns by email.

Back in March, Fox News vice president of programming Bill Shine described his network as the "voice of opposition [to Obama] on some issues." Then there's Glenn Beck, the buzz-cut conspiracy theorist who claimed Fox News president Roger Ailes wooed him over to the conservative network from CNN Headline News in part by stressing the network's opposition to Obama, saying, "I see this as the Alamo."

We've seen what the Fox News brand of opposition looks like.

In the days and weeks leading up to the April 15 tea party protests, which it repeatedly described as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties," Fox News aggressively promoted and publicized them, as well as encouraged viewers to get involved with the events. In fact, over the course of a single week, it featured at least 20 segments on the protests and over a similar time span, aired at least 107 commercial promotions for its coverage of the events, which Beck, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, and Greta Van Susteren each covered live from cities around the country.

Hardly skipping a beat, Fox News began publicizing subsequent tea parties almost immediately after the April 15 events ended. After repeatedly promoting "Tea Party 2.0," an event sponsored in May by the Republican Governors Association, Fox began encouraging people to register for Independence Day tea parties through the Fox Nation, which was followed by the network's relentless promotion and live coverage of the Tea Party Express throughout the waning days of summer.

Not content with outdoor rallies full of paranoid, angry tea-partiers, Fox stepped things up in August, directing its minions to attend health care reform town hall meetings held by congressional Democrats.

The conduct on display at these events would make Rep. Joe Wilson (R-You Lie!) blush. Fox & Friends in particular repeatedly praised protesters and urged viewers to join in the, umm ... fun? During one revealing Fox segment, reporter James Rosen displayed only the schedule of Democratic town halls, stating that he would display the GOP schedule if only Fox could get its hands on a copy. It wasn't until later in the day, after apparently brushing up on basic Google skills, that Rosen displayed both Democratic and Republican town halls.

This partisan hackery paled in comparison to what was coming in the days surrounding the anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

For months, Beck had been promoting his "9-12 Project" as a place for people looking to take back their country, with an eye toward organizing for a September 12 march on Washington. Beck went into overdrive, encouraging followers to turn out en masse, saying, "On 9-12, I hope to see you in Washington. I will make sure you're seen all over the country." Fox News was there, all right, just as Beck said it would be, supplying wall-to-wall coverage of the day's events. One producer even got in on the action, coaching a crowd of protesters to look lively and excited for the cameras just before a live shot.

When the dust finally settled, Beck was so giddy that he couldn't decide exactly how many people had attended his event -- was it the "largest march on Washington ever," 500,000 people, or 1.7 million people? Truth be told, the D.C. fire department unofficially estimated the crowd at between "60,000 and 75,000" attendees.

Yes, Fox News has proven itself quite the capable astroturf supplier, so much so that the conservative network's contributors and hosts are cashing in.

On two separate programs this week, Fox host and potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee directed those watching at home to sign an online petition telling Congress to "balance the budget," "cut their spending," and "save American families." What he didn't say is that once signed, the petition redirects visitors to a page soliciting donations for his political action committee, which financially supports GOP candidates and pays his daughter's salary.

Huckabee seemed to be doing his best Dick Morris impersonation. Leading into the 2008 election and in the weeks that followed, Morris mentioned GOPTrust.com during at least 13 Fox appearances and asked viewers to "give funds to GOPTrust.com," all without disclosing that the organization had paid $24,000 to a company apparently connected to Morris, according to Federal Election Commission records. Just last month, Morris was at it again, using an appearance on Fox to raise money for a right-wing organization that he is closely tied to.

Perhaps it's the rallies or the lobbying or the fundraising or the demonstrably false attacks that's kept President Obama from appearing on Fox News.

Regardless, the right's gravy train rolls on undeterred, facts be damned.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.

The attacks on Jennings, the latest Obama administration official in the right's crosshairs, have been disgusting, misleading, baseless, and at times pointedly anti-gay.

WorldNetDaily's Erik Rush called Jennings a "radical homosexual druggie." The conservative Washington Times contended in an editorial that "Jennings has made extremely radical statements promoting homosexuality in schools." Right-wing radio's big kahuna, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News' Sean Hannity both claimed that Jennings supported promoting homosexuality in the schools, while conservative blogger Michelle Malkin wrote that Jennings was a "controversial homosexual rights' advocate" who founded a "controversial" organization that "aggressively pushes sexually explicit" books.

The controversial organization of which Malkin speaks? GLSEN -- the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network -- which, according to the organization's website, is "the leading national education organization focused on ensuring safe schools for all students. ... GLSEN envisions a world in which every child learns to respect and accept all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression."

In addition to the right's attacks aimed at Jennings' sexual orientation, conservative media outlets sought to paint Jennings as complicit in covering up a crime -- specifically "statutory rape." A Washington Times editorial accused Jennings of "encourag[ing]" a relationship that amounted to "statutory rape." Led by Hannity, Fox News also baselessly claimed that Jennings "cover[ed] up statutory rape" and violated Massachusetts law by not reporting to authorities his 1988 conversation with the student. Limbaugh took things a step further, claiming that Jennings had "encouraged" and "facilitated" a sexual relationship between the student and an adult. Fox News' Bill Hemmer continued the conservative network's attacks on Jennings by claiming that Jennings knew of a "statutory rape" case involving a student but "never reported it." MSNBC's Pat Buchanan went even further, asking if Jennings had "a sense of solidarity with the man, rather than with the kid." Seriously.

The conservative media made it abundantly clear that facts wouldn't get in the way of their latest line of attack on the Obama administration. In a 2004 letter, Jennings' attorney wrote that the student was 16 years old at the time of the incident, which is, and was at the time, the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.

Additionally, Media Matters exclusively confirmed the former student's age was 16 at the time of his conversation with Jennings, posting a redacted copy of his current driver's license, his Facebook message exchange with a FoxNews.com writer in which he said as much, and his statement on the matter.

If you've ever wondered what kind of folks regularly participate in polls sponsored by FoxNews.com, the answer is here. It's two kinds of people: those who are comfortable forming a strong opinion on a subject before the facts are in, and people who get all of their news from Fox News. Ninety-eight percent of respondents to a FoxNews.com poll this week said that Jennings should resign due to his "actions" and "questionable past and experience." I wonder where they could have gotten that idea. (After all, self-righteous indignation is what Sean Hannity does best.)

But don't hold your breath hoping for any consistency from Hannity. After The Washington Times established a completely false equivalency between Jennings and former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) (who, if you'll recall, personally pursued young congressional pages), Media Matters went back and checked the record. It turns out that in 2006, while Dennis Hastert was on his way to being criticized by the House Ethics Committee for his failure to stop Foley's actions, Hannity and his Fox News cohorts were among the then-speaker's staunchest defenders. "The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an e-mail," Hannity said at the time. "[I]'s always easy to say what [Hastert] should've done," Brit Hume said, "but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there." "I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view," said Bill Kristol. "Hastert's position is completely defensible," said Mort Kondracke. "Hastert's you know, being witch hunted down," stated Bill O'Reilly.

When it comes to media conservatives, integrity may be dead, but irony certainly is not.

Lost in these right-wing caricatures of Jennings is the simple fact that education officials and others have spoken highly of the Obama administration official, who has received numerous awards and was an appointee of former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, a Republican.

With this, the latest conservative media witch hunt debunked and put to bed, the timer starts anew. When will the next witch hunt begin? Who's next on the list?

Other major stories this week

A gold medal for Obamalympic-hating media conservatives

It isn't every day that the conservative media -- America's self-appointed protectors of patriotism -- illustrate their true priorities so clearly. But on Friday, they did just that. Here it is, in a nutshell: America lost, and the right-wing noise machine cheered.

The announcement that President Obama planned to fly to Copenhagen to support Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics was immediately denounced by the conservative media. After months of falsely accusing Obama of apologizing for America on the world stage -- even blatantly cropping the president's words to make the point -- you would think that right-wing media figures would have applauded a voyage with the explicit goal of praising the United States. Think again -- not when there are political points to score.

"Chicago is good at ... organized Mafi-- oops, did I say that out loud?" Fox News' Glenn Beck quipped on Thursday. Malkin was even more vitriolic, stating Obama's trip was nothing more than a taxpayer-funded junket designed to secure paybacks for Obama's hometown "cronies."

And that was just the beginning. Hannity claimed that Obama was "more concerned about bringing the Olympics to Chicago than winning the war in Afghanistan." The Washington Examiner's Byron York and The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes attacked Obama's priorities, with Hayes adding, "the optics of it at the very least are terrible." Fox News' Bret Baier brought up the "carbon footprint" of the Air Force One trip, and the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell claimed that Obama's venture was "evidence that [Obama] just cannot stay away from the klieg lights." Fox News' Gretchen Carlson suggested the trip was inappropriate, and both she and her colleague Steve Doocy said that it was against U.S. tradition to "send our president out as a salesman like this." "Have you been to Rio?" asked columnist S.E. Cupp on Fox News, swelling with national pride. "I have. It's awesome."

Even more abysmal was the right's exploitation of a recently released video depicting the brutal murder of a teenage Chicagoan at the hands of gang members. "Is this a city where we want the Olympics taking place?" Hannity asked. "OLYMPIC SPIRIT: VIDEO SHOWS BRUTAL GANG MURDER IN CHICAGO" the Drudge Report blared. "Community organizing has not stopped Chicago's teen violence epidemic," Malkin added.

Then on Friday, the International Olympic Committee eliminated Chicago from the running -- and the rejoicing began.

"Oh, it's so sweet," said Beck live on the radio. "Enjoy this -- savor this moment." "[T]he IOC just says 'no' to Chicago!" cheered Lou Dobbs' webpage, reprinting the latest headline topping Drudge: "The Ego Has Landed." "I don't deny it," said Limbaugh, "I'm happy." Erick Erickson, managing editor of the conservative blog RedState.com, was perhaps the most mature of the conservative revelers, summing up his feelings by writing, "Hahahahaha."

No, it's not every week that we get such a clear indication of just what "patriotism" really means to those in the conservative media -- and it doesn't have anything to do with putting country first.

Drama still besting substance in coverage of health care

This week, the Senate Finance Committee passed Sen. Max Baucus' health care plan, voting down two amendments in the process that would have included a public option in the legislation. That was the week's substantive development affecting health care reform. The rest was the conservative noise machine's usual drone.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) made headlines by bluntly attacking conservatives for lacking a systematic health insurance reform plan. The following day, he returned to the House floor and called for an end to what he termed a "holocaust" caused by the failings of America's health care system.

While his language was indeed blunt, his passion was understandable. A new study conducted by the Harvard Medical School estimates that 45,000 Americans die every year because of our system's flaws. Despite such realities, RedState's Erickson was incensed not by the death toll but by Grayson's statement. "The holocaust was real with a real meaning," he wrote on Wednesday. "Roping it into the health care debate cheapens what it was all about." We're still waiting for Erickson to denounce the numerous conservative media figures who have linked progressive politicians and health care plans to the Nazis.

Limbaugh was more blunt. "I don't believe anybody in this country is dying because of a lack of health insurance," he said, adding, "If there is a holocaust in this country, it is abortion." He again reminded the nation that the Democratic Party is "obsessed with your death" as well as being the "party of abortion and euthanasia, slavery and not liberty." By the end of the week, more Nazi comparisons hardly came as a surprise.

Far more intriguing was the new light shed on serial health care misinformer Betsy McCaughey. A new Rolling Stone article revealed that her 1994 opposition to Bill Clinton's reform legislation had been greased with money from Big Tobacco. CNN political analyst James Carville put the revelations in proper context, calling it "breathtaking proof" of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that has plagued progressives for decades -- especially when it comes to health care reform.

Yet another example of principled conservative opposition was provided by Fox News' Dick Morris, who is still using his time on the conservative network to fund-raise for an anti-reform group that is also employing him. Fox News has yet to see how this might be a conflict of interest.

It's clear that when it comes to issues like health care, progressives have few honest brokers to deal with on the right. As MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on Tuesday, "If no Republicans will join, why should [Democrats] compromise with nobody?"

An intriguing question indeed.

Slavery, coups, and kids, oh my!

The problem with becoming obsessed with destroying your opponent is that you tend to lose touch with reality.

There were numerous examples of that outcome this week. The Drudge Report, Andrew Breitbart, and Fox News ran with yet another video showing schoolchildren singing Obama's praises. The children, who were performing in front of the PTA (nobody objected) were also singing dangerous slogans like, "Can we make America better? Yes we can!" Scary stuff!

Immediately, numerous media figures, including Fox News' Monica Crowley, O'Reilly, and Beck, as well as CNN's Dobbs, claimed the video was evidence of "indoctrination." (Never mind the choir of Louisiana schoolchildren that sang to President Bush after Hurricane Katrina.) They should really wait a bit before reacting to these tapes. After all, Beck, Dobbs, and others were burned badly this week after they ran with a false lead from Breitbart, who claimed he had a video showing community organizers praying to Obama. It turns out that they were actually praying to God. Breitbart was forced to update his story, adding that "there is a debate over what is actually being said." Only in your mind, Andrew.

The real brainwashing was being attempted by syndicated conservative columnist George Will, who wrote yet another column claiming that "evidence" of climate change is "elusive." More troubling still was the work of Newsmax.com's John Perry, who penned a column that even Newsmax soon felt compelled to remove. "There is a remote, although gaining, possibility," he wrote, "America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the 'Obama problem.' Don't dismiss it as unrealistic." How about it we dismiss it as paranoid and delusional?

It was, however, W. Cleon Skousen who won the week's award for "Most Crazy" -- and he's been dead for years. It turns out that in one of his controversial books, Skousen, whose work still holds a powerful influence over Glenn Beck, presented as "the story of slavery in America" a passage from a book by historian Fred Albert Shannon that attacked abolitionists for delaying emancipation, cast slave owners as "the worst victims of the system," claimed white schoolchildren "were likely to envy the freedom of their colored playmates," and stated that "[s]lavery did not make white labor unrespectable, but merely inefficient," because "the slave had a deliberateness of motion which no amount of supervision could quicken." Why would Skousen think that comments like those told the "story of slavery in America"? It does make you wonder -- especially after reading some of the things that Glenn has written.

When everything becomes just another political football, it makes the serious discussion of serious topics impossible. That's what happened this week with Afghanistan policy, as Fox News tried to spin Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recently leaked memo into a story about how Obama was ignoring his military brass. Not surprisingly, the network largely ignored Gen. Eric Shinseki's February 2003 recommendation that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be needed to successfully occupy Iraq.

Media Matters president Eric Burns summed things up clearly as a guest on MSNBC's Countdown this week. Fox News, he said, "is no longer a news organization. This is a political organization, and their aim is to destroy a progressive policy agenda."

The American people are paying the price every day.

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert shows how The Washington Times and Fox News are now unleashing mobs on private citizens (including kids), and Jamison Foser says big media have a chance to show their worth on health care.

Greg Lewis notes that you won't find logic or a grasp of the issues on The Rush Limbaugh Show in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.

Do you listen to podcasts? Try the Media Matters Minute

For months now, radio shows and stations throughout the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (iTunes/RSS) to the Minute podcast, hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, and Digg

Media Matters maintains active online communities on the leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, and Digg and join in on the discussion.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign up to receive his columns by email.

In case you missed this story: Two conservative activists, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, visited a host of ACORN offices around the country posing as a pimp and prostitute. They asked for help establishing a brothel, and even stated that underage girls would be working for them. They had a surveillance camera and recorded at least four interactions with ACORN employees and claimed these employees provided them with assistance. All of the employees implicated have now been fired, and federal aid to ACORN has been cut off.

Still, the story at this point really has a lot more to do with Fox News and conservative media activism than with ACORN. The undercover videos first appeared on BigGovernment.com, founded by Andrew Breitbart, a protégé of Matt Drudge and a conservative with a long record of highly partisan and inflammatory statements. Giles, daughter of conservative blogger Doug Giles, attended the National Journalism Center in Washington, one of the many right-wing institutions conservatives have established to flood the field with young, motivated, and rabidly partisan "reporters." For his part, O'Keefe has been a far-right activist since college.

Breitbart has developed a direct line to Glenn Beck, and so it wasn't long before the videos were being presented breathlessly on his TV and radio programs. This week, following his 9/12 rally, Beck escalated the attacks over ACORN. "But good God almighty, what is wrong with us," he said on Tuesday, "that we don't right now get into the cars and drive back to Washington, and surround the Capitol and say, 'What the hell is wrong with you people? Are you soulless? Are you dead inside?' "

It was just the beginning. "Obama is Van Jones, Obama is ACORN," right-wing pundit Monica Crowley said on Wednesday. "Just as he is ACORN, just as he is Van Jones, he is racism," Rush Limbaugh parroted the sentiment on Thursday. Radio host Jim Quinn said that we were all living in the "United States of ACORN," and Fox News' Megyn Kelly had Karl Rove on to talk about the tapes exposing what was now a "remarkable criminal enterprise." The stakes couldn't be higher. ACORN, after all, was on tap to receive "eight and a half trillion dollars of stimulus money," according to Sean Hannity -- a number that was a thousand times greater than the equally fictitious billions that Beck had accorded to the organization on behalf of the government. ACORN had suddenly ballooned from an organization which had received $53 million in federal funds over 15 years to representing 67 percent of America's gross domestic product.

Fox was running so wild with the story that they were willing to lower their already dubious standards. The first problem was one of logic. Four videos were being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundreds of ACORN employees. It was the opposite of how a credible investigation is supposed to function, in which conclusions are withheld until after all the facts are in. By comparison, here, the conservative media had a few isolated facts but were willing to extrapolate an entire thesis from them.

More important, Fox News failed to vet the tapes. This was made painfully clear with the case of the San Bernardino ACORN office, which was featured in the fourth video to be released. In the footage, ACORN employee Tresa Kaelke claimed that she had murdered her former husband following a period of domestic abuse. On September 15, Beck and Sean Hannity both broadcast Kaelke's assertion. Beck, who had reported on the supposed confession during his radio program, added on Fox, "She never spanked her kids, but she did shoot her husband dead." Later that night, Hannity played the same clip, and in a rare moment of intellectual curiosity, asked about the veracity of the murder claim. "We're working on it," Giles said, which was enough for Hannity. The following morning, on September 16, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson repeated the allegation, saying, "She killed somebody? Despite this, some lawmakers want to keep funding the group."

But Kaelke's ex-husbands are alive. The San Bernardino Police Department confirmed this simple fact on September 15, releasing a statement that read: "Investigators have been in contact with the involved party's known former husbands, who are alive and well." (Kaelke was soon quoted in an ACORN press release saying that she had made the claim because she was seeking to mislead the undercover videographers, whom she was suspicious of.) In spite of these developments, the next day, Hannity was still treating the San Bernardino tape as fully credible. He even hosted Giles again but failed to ask her about her own investigation into the truth of the claim. (Here's a full timeline of the attention the San Bernardino video received.)

In the meantime, another pivotal hole in the story began to present itself. During interviews, Breitbart, Giles, and O'Keefe had all asserted that the undercover team had never been kicked out of an ACORN office. Bertha Lewis, ACORN's CEO and chief organizer, had already said this was a falsehood by the time a Philadelphia ACORN employee, Katherine Conway Russell, publicly claimed to have done just that, adding that she had filed a police report after a visit from the conservative pair. The police report was soon produced, raising further serious questions about the credibility of the entire ACORN exposé. It was another major side of the story that Fox News simply hadn't cared to look into.

On the offense, Breitbart has lashed out at the mainstream media for supposedly burying the story. "The behavior of Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN," he said on Friday, "has been despicable during this." Many mainstream reporters were indeed worthy of criticism, but for the opposite reason that Breitbart cited. Their real failure was discussing the ACORN issue on Fox News' terms and ignoring the network's role in pushing the smears.

The New York Times covered up conservatives' well-documented ACORN obsession in its reporting. In their reports, all three network evening news broadcasts -- ABC's World News, NBC's Nightly News, and the CBS Evening News -- left out substantive facts about the incidents that mitigate the accusations, exonerate ACORN employees, or undermine the credibility of the filmmakers. Moreover, none reported that Fox News, in its aggressive promotion of this story, had made false accusations.

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews was content to report that the right had simply "claimed another victim," as if the campaign had been entirely legitimate. "They know what they are doing because they are getting an audience from this," he added, uncritically. And MSNBC's Dylan Rattigan allowed conservative activist Carter Clews of Americans for Limited Government to ask Bertha Lewis, "How much money did Barack Obama funnel to you ... with his buddy-boy Bill Ayers?" David Shuster and Juan Williams provided some of the week's few media bright spots by focusing on Fox News itself and providing the story with some perspective.

Fox News is already teasing its next round of ACORN attacks. If credible journalists don't stand up for their craft, then Fox News will keep enjoying its position in the driver's seat.

Other major stories this week:

Dropping Lou Dobbs

After years of Lou Dobbs using his CNN platform to promote the work of hate groups, spread racially charged conspiracy theories, and engage in hate speech, Media Matters joined more than 15 national organizations (including NDN, Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Council of La Raza, among others) this week in launching the Drop Dobbs campaign.

The coalition also launched DropDobbs.com, a new website that demonstrates Dobbs' history of xenophobia and nativism and will monitor his misinformation in the days and weeks to come. Those visiting the site are encouraged to take action by signing a petition telling Dobbs' advertisers to stop sponsoring his hate.

Watch this compelling video to learn more about why dropping Dobbs is so important.

Dobbs obviously isn't taking news of the campaign well. He went on the attack this week by targeting many of the groups in the coalition, calling Media Matters "fleas" and claiming that "Hispanic activist groups" "brand" him a "racist" because he "opposes illegal immigration." Dobbs also slammed various groups for "denigrating the United States for not being sufficiently welcoming" to undocumented immigrants and told what he characterized as a "pretty good joke": that calling him a racist "would make you likely a member of La Raza."

On September 15 and 16, Dobbs appeared at the "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" rally and legislative advocacy event in the nation's capital held by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) -- an organization labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. More on FAIR, its racist founder, its ties to eugenicists, and the racially charged comments of some of its staff can be found here.

Media Matters' Eric Burns sent an open letter to Klein, the CNN president, noting, "Mr. Dobbs represents an ongoing threat to CNN's credibility as a serious news organization, in no small part because of his polemical coverage of immigration issues and his continued use of his CNN show to lend prominence to groups such as FAIR. The attention and legitimacy he gave to the 'birther' movement -- and CNN's condoning of his actions -- did real damage to that credibility. His participation in the upcoming FAIR rally would do further, serious damage."

In the end, Dobbs promoted a "very special broadcast" from the FAIR event, going so far as to thank the anti-immigrant organization for hosting a "great town hall event" on "amnesty." During his broadcast from the FAIR event, Dobbs embraced discredited birther Jerome Corsi, whom he called a "pretty good guy to talk to" about immigration. He also hosted KHOW's Peter Boyles, a man who once said of a Hispanic accused rapist: "It's, you know, jobs Americans won't do." During his stint as Dobbs' guest, Boyles said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "looks like Lady Macbeth."

Though Dobbs claimed that "CNN has no role" at FAIR, "it's me, it's this radio show," he and CNN correspondent Lisa Sylvester discussed the FAIR rally on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight -- of course, they made no mention of Dobbs' involvement in the event. After Media Matters pointed out their lack of disclosure, Dobbs suggested that Media Matters was a "hate group" for calling attention to his FAIR ties.

While Dobbs remains a serious problem, Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, had some fun at the CNN host's expense, claiming that he'd lost to Dobbs in his bid to set the "record for the most insults to Mexico in a single nightly news broadcast."

First the "birthers," now the "czar-ers"?

Media conservatives, particularly the folks at Fox News, have been on a crusade of late to rid the Obama administration of czars. You know, because the term sounds foreign ... perhaps Russian ... definitely commie. Of course, in order to fall in line behind their logic, one has to ignore the fact that Republican and Democratic presidents have used the term to identify top advisers for decades. As we noted last week, "In fact, 'czars' were such a non-issue at Fox News during the Bush years that Bill O'Reilly called for the appointment of several new 'czars' to handle immigration, charities, and disaster relief, and not once was he denounced by his colleagues for advocating a 'shadow government' with 'unchecked power.' "

Well, this week was no different. The czar hysteria continued.

Fox News actually set out to explain to viewers why Obama's use of czars was so much worse than President Bush's. The conservative network falsely claimed that The Washington Post reported that Bush had 16 "czars" and that Obama has "twice as many." In fact, in the article Fox News cited, the Post reported, "By one count, Bush had 36 czar positions filled by 46 people during his eight years as president."

Taking a page from the Fox News book, Dobbs also downplayed Bush's use of czars, stating that prior to the Obama administration, "the highest number of czars that we were able to document in our own reporting ... was during the Clinton administration, and he had only 10 czars." I guess Dobbs and his researchers don't read The Washington Post.

Dobbs' report did net the conspiracy-minded CNN host a new nickname, however. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann dubbed Dobbs a "czar-er" in designating him the "Worst Person in the World" for downplaying Bush's use of czars.

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert looks at Michelle Malkin and the anatomy of the 2 million protester lie, and Jamison Foser explains how Time magazine enables Glenn Beck's lies.

Greg Lewis tells us how Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.

It all started at the end of July when Beck, appearing on Fox & Friends, said President Obama had "exposed himself as a guy" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." After the conservative morning show's co-host Brian Kilmeade uncharacteristically pushed back, Beck reversed himself saying, "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people," before dropping the race hammer once again, accusing the president outright of being a "racist."

The racially provocative comments were nothing new for Beck. Just days before making his controversial "racist" charge against Obama, Beck explained that the "thinking" behind the president's agenda "including this health care bill" was centered on "one idea": "reparations" and his desire to "settle old racial scores."

Beck's most recent racially charged attack on Obama led ColorOfChange.org -- which "exists to strengthen Black America's political voice" -- to take action encouraging the Fox News host's sponsors to stop running ads on his program. As a result, tuning into Glenn Beck these days you're more likely to see ads from companies that are more at home during a 3 a.m. rerun of Golden Girls than a 5 p.m. cable news broadcast. It's out with name-brand companies like GEICO, Mercedes-Benz, AT&T, and Bank of America, and it's in with IRS counseling services, water filtration systems and, of course, convicted Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy's great deals for the savvy gold investor.

It's become quite clear that advertisers looking for ways to reach Beck's audience may have better luck with cave drawings lest they end up on ColorOfChange.org's radar.

Faced with an onslaught of criticism over Beck's comments, Fox News did its best disavowal/non-disavowal -- a sort of spin-astics, if you will. Bill Shine, senior vice president of programming at Fox News, distanced the conservative network from the "racist" remark saying, "Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel," before defending the talker's right to say whatever offensive drivel pops into his buzz-cut head. Yep, he just as easily could have said, "he can say anything he wants on our network no matter how vile but, uhh, we won't necessarily agree with him."

I suppose Fox News' position on the subject makes sense. After all, if it punished Beck for this comment, just imagine what it would have to do with the positively loony things that come out of Beck's mouth week after week.

The Fox News strategy seems pretty simple: Keep a low profile and hope that the advertisers return to Beck's broadcast sometime down the road once the controversy has died down. The network sees Beck as its slow-yielding though highly profitable cash crop. All it has to do is remain patient.

Let's be honest, Beck's show is a bit like watching NASCAR. Sure, a lot of people tune in for the race, but there's a healthy chunk of the audience just waiting for a crash. As his sponsors have jumped ship, his audience has grown quite a bit, no doubt fueled by the controversy. Few cable hosts play the victim role with Beck's aplomb. Fewer still would have the cajónes to beg their audience to have friends tune into the show, which, incidentally, is precisely what Beck recently did.

In the interim, Beck's unique brand of crazy paranoia and baseless attacks on the Obama administration continue unabated.

His conspiracy theory du jour seems more likely ripped from the pages of a Hollywood screenplay than any semblance of reality. Perhaps you hadn't heard Beck's crack "reporting" about President Obama's secret plan to build a "civilian national security force," which of course is "what Hitler did with the SS" -- Beck's words. The basis of Beck's latest lapse in sanity comes from the President's goal of expanding the Foreign Service, AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps. That Obama is absolutely diabolical. Sigh.

All is not lost, though. Beck's CNN kissing cousin, Lou Dobbs, has come out swinging in his defense, saying the Fox News host's detractors are up in arms "just because he had the guts to say what he meant. You know, there's a shortage of that. That ought to be encouraged." Sage words of support from a fellow conspiracy theorist who has yet to atone for his strange obsession with President Obama's birth certificate.

Ultimately, Glenn Beck has exposed himself as a guy with a "deep-seated hatred" for President Obama. I'm not saying he doesn't like Obama ... well, you get the idea.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube or sign-up to receive his columns by email.

Following news this week that Obama will speak directly to students next week in a special "back to school" address, media conservatives went absolutely apoplectic, calling Obama's forthcoming speech "indoctrination," as Fox News' Glenn Beck put it.

Beck's comments were only the tip of the iceberg in right-wing outrage. Others compared it to "brainwashing," communist China, and the Hitler Youth. Some (yes, Beck was of course among them) went as far as encouraging parents to keep their children home from school on the day of Obama's speech. Filling in for Rush Limbaugh, Mark Steyn said the president's speech was part of a "cult of personality" though not on the scale of Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein. Steyn also claimed that Obama's speech was based on the view that education exists to make kids "good subjects" of big government. Over on Lou Dobbs' radio program, guest host Chris Stigall pulled back the curtain on this smear ever so slightly when he said that he "didn't say the message was bad," just that he didn't want Obama to talk to his kid alone. Then there was Michael Savage, the third most listened to radio host in America, who put it this way: "Hitler had the Hitler Youth, and Obama would like to have the Obama Youth."

Of course, Fox News was hyping the outrage. On The Live Desk, Fox commentator Andrea Tantaros flexed her intellectual heft, saying of the president's speech: "They do this type of thing in North Korea and the former Soviet Union ... very cultish." Fox & Friends hosted a parent who plans to "keep kids home" from Obama's "indoctrination" speech, while the network's right-wing website TheFoxNation.com asked visitors "Will You Keep Your Kids Home the Day Obama Speaks to Schools?" I'm actually surprised the options for answers weren't "yes" and "absolutely."

Perhaps it would be helpful at this point if we actually discussed what exactly Obama plans on telling students during his speech on September 8. Well, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter to school principals last week describing Obama's speech as being about "the importance of education" and "persisting and succeeding in school." Duncan also offered "classroom activities" to "engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education."

How absolutely communisty of Obama! How dare he subject our children to such indoctrination. If our kids take his advice, they might, they might end up in college, and we all know how liberal our colleges and universities make our once-wholesome boys and girls.

Sigh.

In all seriousness, Obama is hardly the first president to directly address students in the classroom. NBC's Kevin Tibbles noted that George H.W. Bush broadcast a speech to classrooms nationwide in 1991, while Fox News' Wendell Goler noted that both Bush and Ronald Reagan (you know, the one and only Gipper that the right always wants to win one for) broadcast speeches to classrooms nationwide.

Simply put, the freak-out over Obama's planned speech is due to baseless fears, stoked by conservatives in the media, that he will use the platform as an opportunity to push his agenda on unsuspecting students. Ironically, that is exactly what Reagan did two decades ago during his classroom speech. In fact, during Reagan's November 1988 address to classrooms, he spoke of the American "vision of self-government" and the need "to keep faith with the unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America," but in the middle of the speech, the president went off on a tangent about the importance of low taxes.

With each passing week, it becomes more apparent that the conservative media will take anything Obama does and twist it beyond comprehension.

Other major stories this week

Conservatives boycotting WorldNetDaily

How far out there is the right-wing website WorldNetDaily? So far out that many of its fellow conservatives are not only disassociating themselves from it as fast as they can, but are actively figuring out how to boycott it. Just ask Jon Henke at The Next Right, who noted WND's embrace of the claim that the federal government is building concentration camps for U.S. political dissidents and wrote this week: "In the 1960's, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being 'so far removed from common sense' and later said 'We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner.' The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet. ... No respectable organization should support the kind of fringe idiocy that WND peddles. Those who do are not respectable."

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah responded to news of the conservative boycott against supporters of his "news" organization in the expected way -- by demonstrating why conservatives would want to boycott WND in the first place.

In his September 1 column, Farah dismissed Henke as "this fellow I have never known nor associated with nor even heard of." Farah then went on to spin Henke's post, suggesting he was moved to support a boycott solely "because of an article he read in the Boston Herald last week." In fact, it's clear from Henke's post that the Herald article was merely the last straw, not the entire rationale.

It is refreshing to see a conservative blogger of Henke's caliber standing up to the likes of Farah and WND. I just hope he has his long-form birth certificate on hand, because it's only a matter of time before Farah sends his slobbering, paranoid attack dogs errrr ... reporters after him.

Time to change the locks? Beck to receive "key to the city"

According to Seattle's KOMO News Radio, the mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, Bud Norris (mvmayor@ci.mount-vernon.wa.us), will "give the key to his city to conservative talk show host Glenn Beck on September 26."

You read that right. A key to the city for a man who, among other things, asked his listeners this week to pray to stave off Satan-like "perversion" of the country. A man who suggested this week that the Obama administration would use the bombings of a Canadian pipeline to justify a takeover of oil companies. This week, he also warned "regular Democrat[s]" that the "über-left" is about to smother you with a pillow." Then, of course, there are his infamous comments from late July that Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people" and that "this guy is, I believe, a racist."

If Glenn Beck is going to get a key to anything, it should be his own small, private room with white padded walls. I suppose we'd need to get the key back, though.

As for his comment about Obama being "racist," here's an update. According to a press release from ColorOfChange.org: "Eleven new companies whose ads were recently seen during Beck's program ... have pledged to ColorOfChange.org to take steps to ensure that their ads don't run on Beck's show. Fifty-seven companies have now committed not to support Beck's show."

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert explains why Glenn Beck and Fox News can't escape the "racist" trap; Jamison Foser discusses how the conservative media have taken a strong stand against ... learning; and Karl Frisch looks into the world of Lou Dobbs and his hate groupies.

Greg Lewis brings us "The arrogance and misinformation persist, even when Limbaugh is away" in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.

On September 15 and 16, Dobbs is scheduled to appear at the "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" rally and legislative advocacy event in the nation's capital being thrown by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). These anti-immigrant zealots must be pleased as heavily spiked punch to have Dobbs helping out again this year, just as they were with his participation last year when it bragged in a press release that the CNN host's "prominence will add to the visibility and stature of [the] event."

Heck, they even gave Dobbs their first-ever "People's Voice Award" for his "continued efforts in leading the immigration reform movement through both his talk radio show and his television show." The award is no doubt nearly as coveted as the jingoistic fumes that seem to fuel both Dobbs and the organization.

So what exactly is FAIR, other than a conveniently misleading acronym?

Well, for starters, the group was founded 30 years ago by John Tanton, who remains on its board to this day and happens to have a well-documented history of making racist statements and espousing racist beliefs.

In 2001, Tanton reportedly praised the work of a notorious Nazi sympathizer, saying his work should form "a guidepost to what we must follow again this time." Back in the mid-1980s, he authored memos, which the nonpartisan Southern Poverty Law Center said were meant for "colleagues who met at retreats to discuss immigration." According to news reports, the memos, in part, "raised questions about the 'reproductive powers' of the races, suggesting: 'perhaps this is the first instance in which those with the pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!' "

The memos are all the more chilling when coupled with the fact that according to FAIR's publicly available IRS disclosure forms, the organization has received at least $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation that supports the work of white supremacists, eugenicists, and others who seek to prove that genetic differences exist between races.

Dobbs strikes like a rattlesnake when he's accused of being anti-immigrant, claiming his venom is reserved only for illegal immigrants. But FAIR -- whose spokespeople often grace Dobbs' CNN program -- takes a hard line against even legal immigration, promoting a policy that would effectively halt hard-working men and women, the spouses and family of American citizens and countless others from legally immigrating to America in a tradition not unlike many of our ancestors. FAIR's current president, Dan Stein, was painfully forthcoming when he said: "Many [immigrants] hate America, hate everything the United States stands for. Talk to some of these Central Americans."

FAIR also has a long history of producing racially charged television commercials that have attacked both Republicans and Democrats -- ads which have been described in newspaper editorials as "racially tinged" and "trash" that "incite hate," "play upon stereotypical racial fears," and "are full of half-truths and lies."

It's easy to understand why the SPLC has designated FAIR a "hate group." What's hard to figure out, however, is why CNN would allow Dobbs to publicly align himself with such a group. Rather than denouncing the organization, Dobbs' CNN program has cited FAIR as a reliable source on the immigration issue no fewer than six times in the last year. Of course, he also routinely fails to disclose the chummy relationship he shares with the group.

CNN prides itself on being "the most trusted name in news." It goes to great lengths to distinguish itself from what it apparently sees as the lost souls over at MSNBC and Fox News. The network ran ads earlier this summer declaring, "Get the facts from the only news channel to give you all sides. No spin. No affiliation. No agenda." Its president, Jonathan Klein, laid it on even thicker, saying, "We've really tried hard to differentiate ourselves as the real news network."

With all due respect, Mr. Klein, you need to try a bit harder.

It's bad enough that employers take advantage of undocumented immigrants. For CNN to sit back and count the Dobbs dollars rolling in at the expense of such people is even worse. If Dobbs won't end his association with FAIR, CNN should do the right thing and end its association with Dobbs.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube or sign-up to receive his columns by email.

"Ted Kennedy was a true American statesman. The values that he so eloquently and tirelessly championed represent the best of our American ideals. He reached across the aisle to get hard work done but never sacrificed principle. Though he is gone, the dream will forever live on. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Vicki Kennedy, the Senator's family, his loyal staff and the millions of lives he touched throughout his historic life and career."

Far from letting Kennedy rest in peace, many media conservatives savagely attacked the Senate's last liberal lion. Leading the charge was radio host Rush Limbaugh, who began his broadcast Wednesday morning eulogizing Kennedy by calling him "the lion of the Senate" before noting that "we were his prey." Hardly finished, El Rushbo would go on to say that "Kennedy screwed up everything he touched." He said Kennedy's opposition to Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination was "the beginning of the dawn of the age of the current hate." He claimed Kennedy "used the government to take money from people that work to give it to people that don't work" and that "most of Senator Kennedy's plans ended up damaging the people he seeks to help." Finally, Limbaugh marveled at the fact that "the Constitution is still there, even after Ted Kennedy in the Senate for 52 [sic] years." All that and more led MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Politico's Patrick Gavin to agree that "Limbaugh showed great restraint" in discussing Kennedy's death. Can you imagine what Rush would have said had it not been for such "restraint?"

Limbaugh was hardly alone in his disgusting attacks on Kennedy. Radio host and Fox News political analyst Tammy Bruce kept it classy, claiming on Twitter that Fox News Sunday's Chris "Wallace noted the last great act of Kennedy's career was to endorse [President] Obama. I agree: he left a woman to drown and now he's left us to drown."

Eric Sanger, a director at Premiere Radio Networks, ABC Radio/Citadel Media and The Sean Hannity Show, said on Facebook (emphasis added), "The irony is that the media is already positioning Ted as a champion for the little man against wealth and privilege. This piece of garbage was the poster child for wealth and privilege. Hopefully, this event will mark the end of this repugnant family and all the endless crap, entitlement, personal indulgences and collateral damage (Kopechne, Bessette, Bowman, Moxely, etc.)."

Wesley Pruden, a Washington Times columnist, wrote that Kennedy's death was "a good career move" and that Democrats "are smiling through their tears," while Andrew Breitbart, a fellow Times columnist, called Kennedy a "villain," a "duplicitous bastard," and a "prick" on Twitter, as noted by Politico. Riehl World View, a right-wing blog, came to Breitbart's defense, claiming that liberals criticizing him were "hypocrites" because when Dick Cheney dies, they're going to do the exact same thing. That's right, liberals today are hypocrites because of what they might do in the future. Now that's some crazy fortune-telling.

Fox News host Sean Hannity told his audience that "out of respect for his family," he had decided not to "bring up Mary Jo Kopechne" or Kennedy's "radical socialism." Seriously.

When they weren't busy attacking Kennedy's legacy, media conservatives -- like Fox News' Laura Ingraham -- were attacking Democrats for purportedly attempting to use his passing to stifle debate and enact health care reform legislation, repeatedly calling this supposed tactic the "death card." In a true episode of pot meets kettle, conservative media figures -- like health care serial misinformer Betsy McCaughey -- have used Kennedy's death to attack health care reform, some even baselessly suggesting that if reform passes, elderly cancer patients -- as Kennedy was -- will be "denied" treatments or that their treatments will be "rationed." Limbaugh said that "Ted Kennedy didn't have to read a death book," while Tom Marr, guest-hosting Lou Dobbs' radio show, said under a public option, a "bureaucrat" would have told Kennedy, "77, brain tumor, bye-bye."

On top of the relentless smears from media conservatives, several mainstream press outlets repeated without question the GOP claim that Kennedy's absence from the health care debate prevented lawmakers from reaching a bipartisan compromise and that had Kennedy been present, agreement on health care reform would have been more likely. Several progressive commentators have identified this talking point as GOP spin intended to disguise Republicans' obstructionism, with Salon.com's Joan Walsh, for example, stating that "absolutely no evidence supports that point of view" and washingtonpost.com blogger Ezra Klein noting that Kennedy's committee has already reported out a bill -- a progressive one, at that.

In another example of, shall we say, interesting reporting, ABC's Jonathan Karl claimed on August 27 that if "last night's town hall meeting in Phoenix is any indication" of whether Kennedy's death will "inspire newfound unity on health care reform," "the answer seems to be no." But the video Karl aired to support his claim was from an August 25 event that occurred before Kennedy's death, not from "last night."

Perhaps worst of all, conservative media figures -- like Fox News' Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, and National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez, to name a few -- have returned to the tired smear that the memorial service for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) became "a political rally" to suggest that progressives will excessively politicize Kennedy's death. But as now-Sen. Al Franken documented at length, the claim that Wellstone's memorial was politicized is a myth based on distortions propagated by the conservative media.

Which leads me to think this is becoming a case of déjà vu all over again.

Other major stories this week

Death becomes them

An increasingly morbid culture is dominating conservative attacks against health care reform. Not content to accuse Democrats of merely seeking the deaths of seniors and the disabled with supposed "death panels," conservatives have now accused them of seeking to turn the Veterans Affairs Department into a euthanasia organization -- for veterans. Yes, it was the week of the "death book." The book in question was "Your Life, Your Choices," or YLYC, originally published in 1997 and designed to help vets consider end-of-life issues. According to the right, though not according to fact, the Bush administration had temporarily put the book out of use, but Obama's VA has brought it back, among other similar works.

As an aside, it's worth noting that in 2005, the Republican-controlled Senate proposed calling on Medicare to cover voluntary advanced planning consultations -- end-of-life counseling, as it were. Fox News, of course, ignored the story. But consistency isn't their bag -- hypocrisy is.

And so, after an August 18 Wall Street Journal op-ed argued that YLYC contained an unmistakable "hurry-up-and-die message," Fox News' Chris Wallace repeatedly cropped quotes from the new Veterans Health Administration (VHA) document mentioning the book in order to falsely suggest the Obama administration was requiring veterans to read it. When his guest, assistant secretary of Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth rebutted his accusation, he said she was lying.

The conservative noise machine swung into action. The baseless assault was soon repeated by multiple Fox News guests. A Washington Times editorial raised rationing fears and claimed that "the book fosters dark thoughts about a difficult life somehow being less of a life." Sean Hannity said the administration was doing something "unimaginable." Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page that the book "encourages veterans to forego care as they make end-of-life decisions." National Review's Jonah Goldberg said that the VA was telling "veterans that maybe they should be euthanized." Fox News' Karl Rove said that vets were being pushed toward "assisted suicide." Even Sen. John McCain agreed that the book was like a "death panel." (Sadly, CNN entertained the smear, too.)

When The New York Times reported on the story, it neglected to note a fact that just might get to the heart of the story. The author of the original Journal op-ed, H. James Towey, runs a nonprofit group that has published its own booklet on end-of-life issues, a book by Towey himself. It shouldn't surprise us, then, that Towey has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get the VA to adopt his literature instead of YLYC.

How do veterans feel? The Vietnam Veterans of America weighed in on Wednesday, saying that "it is outrageous for some partisans to politicize the debate by targeting veterans with blatant scare tactics." But don't look for them to get much airtime on Fox. That's not what the conservative media mean when they talk about "supporting the troops." VoteVets.org blogger Richard Smith criticized Towey's assertion that YLYC presents "end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions," noting "if the document was really trying to get veterans to pull the plug on themselves, then first suggesting to them that their life should be prolonged at all costs is a pretty stupid way to do it" [emphasis in original].

As was the case last week, there were good examples of media coverage to be celebrated. MSNBC's Contessa Brewer noted that Betsey McCaughey, who is normally treated by the media with a sort of reverence, was forced to resign from a medical company's board over "conflict of interest" concerns. NBC News' David Gregory corrected Sen. Orrin Hatch's false claim that "tens of millions" of Americans will switch to a public option if it is offered. MSNBC's David Shuster debunked claims about the "death book" and rebutted the idea that Democrats will provide health care to undocumented immigrants, while his colleague Keith Olbermann also took the "death book" smear to task, as did Alison Stewart, guest-hosting for Rachel Maddow. While interviewing McCain, ABC's George Stephanopoulos pushed back repeatedly against the baseless conservative spin. CNN's Howard Kurtz discussed a poll finding that 75 percent of Fox News viewers believe the false "death panel" claims -- which turned Fox News' Shepard Smith into an outlier when he forced Carl Cameron to note that there are no "death panels" in Democratic health care legislation. Look for him to face renewed criticism from conservatives for daring to set things straight.

Conspiracy theorist Beck loses 46th advertiser

Did Glenn Beck forget that he called Obama a "racist"? And does the fact that nearly 50 advertisers to date have abandoned his program in response to a grassroots campaign have anything to do with Beck's sudden bout of monumental amnesia?

Why do we ask? Because when Beck visited Bill O'Reilly's show this week to bemoan attempts by nasty liberal "loons" to shut Beck up, to snatch away his freedom of speech, there wasn't a single mention of what exactly Beck had done to attract such scorn from progressives. At Fox News, that smear seems to have been flushed down the memory hole, and all that's left is playing the victim.

We're used to Beck being "out there," but Thursday's show was special. Beck's hour (the second day in a row in which he didn't say a thing about Kennedy's death) was all about the supposed secret army being built by Obama. In fact, Obama's comments about the necessity of a "civilian national security force" came from a July 2, 2008, speech on service, and they referred to expanding the foreign service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps.

This secret army idea -- not supported by any facts, though possibly written in invisible ink that Beck can interpret -- is a pet cause of fringe radio host Alex Jones, who is something of a leader in the underground 9-11 "truth" movement, which believes that the attacks were an inside job and that all the governments of the world are controlled by a cabal of the uber-rich who want to kill two-thirds of the world's population. Jones has repeatedly alluded to the existence of a secret army being built by Obama, a charge similar to the one leveled by Beck on his show. The difference, of course, is that Jones mostly transmits over the Internet and shortwave radio. Beck has a show on a cable "news" network. Beck's previous flirtation with the idea that FEMA was building detention camps for conservatives is also an article of faith with Jones and his followers.

When Beck wasn't occupied with scrawling wild conspiracy theories on a chalk board (by the way, it became apparent this week that Beck could use some spelling lessons), he was begging his audience to "call a friend and tell them to watch the show this week." Surely, this had nothing to do with the legions of advertisers fleeing his show. By the way, Palin was happy to oblige, inviting her Facebook fans to tune in.

Sean Hannity for president, Hahahaha ...

Here's a good laugh to close out the week. On Monday, the right-wing Fox News website TheFoxNation.com linked under the headline "President Hannity?" to a WorldNetDaily article that claimed the Fox host "would make a formidable candidate, with the likability of Reagan, good looks and strong convictions." Adding more fuel to the hilarious fire in an "exclusive commentary," Joseph Farah, a birther and founder/editor/CEO of WorldNetDaily, weighed in: "I could get excited about a Sean Hannity candidacy. I could get excited about a Sean Hannity presidency. I even hear he has a birth certificate." For his part, Hannity said Thursday: "I would run for office at some point in my life." Could America be so lucky? Try not to swoon.

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert looks at how to media, angry right-wingers are important, while angry libs are annoying, and Jamison Foser discusses the media's health care filibuster.

Greg Lewis brings us "'Rush Limbaugh showed great restraint'? Please ..." in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.

In recent days, talk of Senate Democrats using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform legislation has grown. According to Senate rules, bills advanced through the process can't be filibustered, and so the 60-vote threshold that must be met to defeat a filibuster would not apply. Republicans used reconciliation in exactly this way during the Bush years to pass tax cuts in 2001, 2003, and 2005. Senate Republicans also used the reconciliation process to pass a bill permitting oil drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.) So long as the legislation in question impacts the budget, doing so is within regular Senate order.

Conservatives in the media, however, have now chosen to portray such a course of action as the dreaded "nuclear option." As usual, a little history reveals a lot of hypocrisy. The phrase was actually coined by former Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) in 2003 during the Democratic filibuster of U.S. Court of Appeals nominee Miguel Estrada. At the time, Republican aides discussed changing the rules of the Senate to make filibusters of judicial nominees out of order. Lott, reflecting the drastic nature of such a change, called it a "nuclear option." Starting in 2005, Republicans noted that the term polled badly. They began referring to such a rules change as the "constitutional option," and claimed that only Democrats called it a "nuclear option." The media quickly fell in line, repeating the falsehood.

Unsurprisingly, the hypocrisy has continued. Passing budget-related legislation through the reconciliation process and the "nuclear option" have nothing to do with each other.

This hasn't stopped the conservative media from conflating the two. The goal is to portray progressives as a group of anti-democratic radicals, forcing through a supposedly unpopular bill using procedural tricks -- or, in Chris Matthews' words, "blow[ing] up the Senate rules." Fox News vice president and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon was one of the first to draw the false equivalency back in June, and in recent days, the chorus has only grown. Dick Morris did the same on August 10, and Sean Hannity has repeatedly pushed the distortion. The Fox Nation website even chose to illustrate the story using a mushroom cloud.

Just as they did several years ago, multiple mainstream media figures have taken up the right's deceitful talking point, among them A.B. Stoddard of The Hill, Matthews, and even CNN hosts Anderson Cooper and Kiran Chetry. Thus far, factual explanations, such as the one provided by CNN's Josh Levs, have been few and far between.

This distortion has jumped from the media to the highest levels of the Republican Party. When Hannity hosted RNC chairman Michael Steele, he asked about the "by any means necessary" approach Democrats were considering. "Does this mean the will of the American people," Hannity asked, "as evidenced by just about every credible poll, means nothing to them?" (It seems as though NBC/Wall Street Journal polls are no longer credible to Hannity.) Steele agreed: "If it means the nuclear option, it's going to be the nuclear option."

The right-wing distortion here is obvious and blatant. For the sake of its credibility, the media needs to take its finger off the "nuclear" button.

Other major stories this week

Tom DeLay joins Dancing with the Birthers

Disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) has had quite a week. First, it was announced that he will be joining the new cast of ABC's Dancing with the Stars. Appearing on ABC's Good Morning America, DeLay told Chris Cuomo: "I love dancing. ... You've got to love dancing if you're from Texas." He's right -- we all remember DeLay's deft ability to dance around congressional ethics rules. CNN's Campbell Brown called it DeLay's "second act," but I'm pretty sure his curtain was called years ago.

Far from finished, DeLay made the rounds on cable and network television promoting his new venture as a reality star. On MSNBC's Hardball, DeLay aligned himself with CNN's Lou Dobbs by saying, "I would like the president to produce his birth certificate."

Maybe ABC should rename the show Dancing with the Birthers, because Tom DeLay is apparently a master of el tango loco.

Beck's advertiser exodus continues

Last week we noted:

There was an encouraging development in the ongoing campaign to get hate off our public airwaves. After a host of progressive groups, among them Media Matters and ColorOfChange.org, publicized Beck's recent rant accusing [President] Obama of racism, multiple companies announced that they would no longer advertise on his program -- among them: ConAgra, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Radio Shack, GEICO, Travelocity, and Sargento. Reflecting on the development, The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart said that it might "pump the brakes on some of these wild statements." We can only hope.

Well, Beck's advertiser exodus continues. This week, Farmers Insurance reportedly said it had "ceased placing [ads] on Glenn Beck a week ago." Likewise, GMAC Financial Services, parent company of Ally Bank, announced that it, too, had "ceased advertising on the Glenn Beck program."

The conservative media chattering class is none too pleased with these developments. Radio host Rose Tennent called GEICO "idiots" for pulling Beck's ads, while radio talker Jim Quinn said Color of Change has "kowtowed" advertisers into ditching Beck. On his radio program, Fox News' Sean Hannity even claimed that accusations that radio hosts want the president dead (I, for one don't, remember anyone of prominence making this charge) were part of a "strategy to silence," like "people go[ing] after advertisers."

In other sponsor news, JC Penney reportedly said it has a "policy" that prohibits advertising on Rush Limbaugh's show -- but Media Matters was able to produce audio from El Rushbo's broadcast containing an ad for the retailer. Home Depot also reportedly claimed it doesn't "support" Limbaugh's program, and Media Matters was also able to produce audio of a Home Depot ad airing during the conservative leader's show. We welcome the policies announced by JC Penney and Home Depot, but perhaps now would be a good time for them to state publicly that they will no longer run ads on Rush's show.

When PoliticsDaily.com claimed that "the pressure on advertisers has become a politically charged debate about the right to free speech, censorship and what constitutes hate speech," Media Matters' Eric Boehlert responded: "Do editors at PoliticsDaily.com not understand what 'censorship' means in terms of free speech? ... Of course, only the government can censor free speech." In other words, the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to his own show.

Conservative media: Barney Frank is soooo rude

At a town hall meeting in Massachusetts, a woman took to the mic and asked Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who is both Jewish and gay, "why do you continue to support a Nazi policy as Obama has expressly supported this policy? Why are you supporting it?" Frank responded: "When you ask me that question, I'm going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question. On what planet do you spend most of your time?" Frank went on to say, "You want me to answer the question? As you stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis, my answer to you is, as I said before, it is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. ... Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to have an argument with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.

For conservatives in the media, this was over the line. No, I'm not talking about the Nazi nonsense; I'm talking about Frank's response to the lunacy.

Fox News' Brian Kilmeade blasted Frank's "arrogance" and "smugness" and wondered why the Massachusetts Democrat couldn't just say, "I understand where you're coming from, but ... " His Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy repeatedly defended the woman, claiming that Frank's response to her was "rude," out of touch, and laden with "attitude," while never noting the content of the woman's question. Limbaugh called the woman's Nazi sign and question "fabulous" before telling his listeners that Frank "spends most of his time living around Uranus."

In the words of Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert, "I've been watching these town hall meetings, and I've had enough of these uncontrollable outbursts by members of Congress. Hey, congressmen, how are people supposed to scream their questions if you keep interrupting with your answers? And Democrat Barney Frank is the latest culprit."

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert explains how the health care mobs = Swift Boat Vets. And the press plays dumb, again; Jamison Foser details how the media made this summer's political insanity inevitable; and Karl Frisch tells us how those "death panels" really do exist.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.

The "death panel" smear goes something like this: President Obama and his comrades in Congress are hell-bent on instituting mandatory end-of-life counseling sessions for American seniors as part of their socialist takeover of the health insurance industry. They will choose who gets to live and who will die. You know, just like Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did in Germany.

To date, the media have debunked the "kill granny" lie more than 40 times. The nonpartisan FactCheck.org says the claim of mandatory counseling on ending seniors' lives is "a misrepresentation." ABC's chief medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson, said "the idea about death panels" is "not at all legitimate." PolitiFact.com has called "death panel" claims "a ridiculous falsehood." When the Associated Press conducted a fact check of the bogus charge, it reported, "No 'death panel in health care bill.' "

After former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin claimed that "Obama's 'death panel' " could decide the fate of her parents or her son who has Down syndrome, conservative radio host Larry Elder aptly called her comments "over the top."

Having been called on the carpet repeatedly for their "death panel" claims, other media conservatives like ABC's John Stossel and Fox News' Glenn Beck have taken a new approach. Many now claim that while proposals for health insurance reform may not actually force seniors into end-of-life counseling, they will result in "de facto death panels" via the government's rationing of care. Seriously.

The dubious right-wing spin surrounding health insurance reform is a bit like that bad cough that just won't go away -- persistent and annoying.

Despite the coverage allotted to debunking the right-wing "death panel" smear, the bigger picture remains intact. Americans face real death panels from their own health insurance providers. Rather than simply debunking the right's false talking point, the media should have gone one step further and pointed out that health insurance companies make life-and-death decisions every day when they decide what they are willing and not willing to cover.

Largely lost in the media discussion surrounding health insurance reform is the reality of the status quo -- you know, why we need reform in the first place.

Back in June, the evening news broadcasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS ignored a congressional hearing on insurance companies' practice of investigating the medical histories of people who become ill and submit claims for expensive treatments, and then rejecting those claims on the grounds that those individuals had pre-existing conditions. The goal is quite simple. Find something -- anything -- and cancel or deny coverage for needed, potentially life-saving treatment. Why save a life when you can save a buck?

Robin Beaton, a former policyholder, testified in the hearing that she had been subject to this very practice. A retired registered nurse, Beaton's dermatologist had mistakenly indicated that she may have been suffering from a pre-cancerous skin condition. Soon after, she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer. A few days before her scheduled double mastectomy, Blue Cross launched an investigation into her health records going back five years, convinced she was hiding a serious pre-existing condition.

Many Americans have stories just like Beaton's. Congress ultimately concluded that three major American insurance companies rescinded 19,776 policies for over $300 million in savings over five years, a number that Wendell Potter, a former senior executive at CIGNA health insurance company, said "significantly undercounts the total number of rescissions" by the companies.

It's not to say that the media ignore all stories like Beaton's; they don't. The modern media are in the drama business. Too often, media of all stripes characterize this important policy debate as a "he said, she said" over the government's role in health care, something that conservatives no doubt relish, and in the process, they fail to paint a picture of the way things currently exist.

This practice plays not only with the health of too many Americans, but with the health of modern journalism as well. We can hardly solve this crisis if we aren't being told the whole story.

Death panels are real. They do exist. Your own insurance provider could be in on it. And it's time the media said so.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign up to receive his columns by email.

How can we forget his preoccupation with conspiracy theories about purported government plans for a "North American Union" between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada? Or his promotion of the nutty conspiracy that Mexicans plan to reconquer the American Southwest?

Over the past two weeks, however, Dobbs took things even further, pushing one of the most ludicrous conspiracy theories of the right-wing fringe: the notion that the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate is in doubt.

Kicking things off on the July 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Dobbs aligned himself with the far-right birther movement, devoting substantial airtime to the issue of Obama's birth certificate, asserting repeatedly that Obama needs to "produce" it. Dobbs said that the birth certificate posted online by FactCheck.org "purporting to validate the president" has "some issues. ... I mean, it's peculiar." He also stated that he wants to see a "long form" birth certificate, which he called "the real deal." That same day on his CNN program, Dobbs brought up the issue again. Referring to the document that FactCheck.org posted, he said, "It is, in fact, the so-called short form, not the original document. It is really a document saying that the state of Hawaii has the real document in its possession."

By contrast, Dobbs' CNN colleagues have repeatedly debunked claims that Obama has yet to produce a valid birth certificate, calling them "total bull" and "a whack-job project," and have characterized those who make these claims as "conspiracy theorists" who wear "tin foil hat[s]."

Two days after his initial rant on the subject, Kitty Pilgrim was filling in for the immigration-obsessed-crusader as guest host of his CNN show. During the broadcast, Pilgrim, a regular correspondent for Lou Dobbs Tonight, debunked claims that Obama does not have a valid birth certificate and is therefore ineligible to be president, noting that CNN "found no basis" for such claims and cited "overwhelming evidence that proves that his birth certificate is real, and that he was born in Honolulu."

You'd think that would put an end to the nonsense. Yet, days after Pilgrim answered it on his very own show, Dobbs was back on the air claiming that the birth certificate "questions won't go away." A day later, still on the birther bandwagon, Dobbs said on his CNN program that "no one" knows "the reality" of Obama's birth certificate.

Dobbs' obsession with this fringe conspiracy did not go unnoticed by his colleagues at CNN or competing networks for that matter. With Dobbs digging in his heels, other outlets began picking up -- and debunking -- various strands of the story.

On the July 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews hosted Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), one of nine Republican co-sponsors of what has become known as the "birther bill" -- legislation that would require future presidential candidates to provide their birth certificates. During the nearly 10-minute segment, Matthews grilled the conservative congressman on the "crazy proposal," repeatedly asking, "Do you believe that Barack Obama is a legitimate, native-born American or not?"

The following day, Los Angeles Times media writer James Rainey quoted FactCheck.org director and former CNN employee Brooks Jackson as stating, "CNN should be ashamed of itself for putting some that stuff on the air." In the same report, Rainey noted the assertion of "one CNN employee" who, in an apparent attempt to distance Dobbs from the network, "reminded [him] several times that Dobbs' most pointed assertions were made on his radio program, which is unconnected to CNN."

Perhaps sensing a tidal wave of opposition to his fringe commentary mounting, Dobbs took to his radio show on July 21 to rant about the "national liberal media" debunking birther theories, telling his audience "they are not applying critical judgment."

At least we now know what Dobbs thinks of his CNN colleagues and other members of the media, who have taken to the airwaves since Dobbs' initial rant to debunk the Obama birth certificate theories, often while could "make the whole...controversy disappear ... by simply releasing his original birth certificate." Yep, if the president placates a bunch of right-wing lunatics, they'll be sure to leave him alone.

It's not Dobbs who is on the attack; he is the victim of the "liberal media," which is afraid to "upset the Obama White House." It's those "limp-minded, lily-livered lefties ... attacking" Dobbs because he "actually had the temerity to inquire as to where the birth certificate was." Dobbs' words, not mine. You can't make this stuff up.

In the days that followed, Dobbs faced a torrent of criticism spanning the media gambit: NBC Nightly News debunked the Dobbs-driven birther theory; MSNBC's Chris Matthews wondered if the hubbub is about "not documentation, but pigmentation"; Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, noting that Pilgrim had debunked Dobbs on his own show, asked, "Do you even watch CNN?"; MSNBC's Ed Schultz said, "For Lou Dobbs to wonder if President Obama is quote, 'undocumented' ... that's fringe psycho talk"; playing a clip of Dobbs on MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Willie Geist said birthers are flogging an "imaginary controversy."

The sparks really flew after CNN's Roland Martin took on Dobbs' obsession with the birther conspiracy. Interviewed by Rick Sanchez, Martin made his opinion abundantly clear, describing those who promote the conspiracy as "a small group of nutty people." Referring to the words of a birther yelling at Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) at a recent town hall meeting, "I want my country back," Martin said the birther really meant, "How is this black guy all of the sudden running the country?" Dobbs was none too pleased. On his radio show, he called Martin's rebuttal "a hoot," saying, "I can't believe Roland would say something that stupid -- that it's racist." The next day on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Martin told Dobbs, "[Obama's] not here to satisfy Lou Dobbs."

So, who are the birthers whose claims Dobbs is advancing? The figures include Andy Martin, who has made anti-Semitic and racially charged comments; 9-11 "Truther" Philip Berg; perennial candidate for public office Alan Keyes, who has reportedly accused Obama of taking the "slaveholder's position" on abortion; a pastor who has prayed for Obama's death; and the discredited right-wing website WorldNetDaily. Remember, in Dobbs' world, it is the "liberal media" who have failed to apply "critical judgment" to this issue.

Late this week, word leaked that CNN President Jon Klein had reportedly emailed information on Thursday to the staff of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight that Klein said shows the "story" about President Obama's birth certificate "is dead." Dobbs noted that evidence -- which was a statement by the Hawaii Health Department that in 2001, paper records were replaced by electronic records -- on air as Klein instructed, but then asked CNN contributor Roland Martin: "When this could be dispelled so quickly, and -- and simply by producing [the birth certificate], why not do it?" We already know that Dobbs apparently doesn't follow the reporting of his own network. I suppose, then, that it isn't surprising to see Dobbs having issues following his own logic.

Less than 24 hours after declaring Dobbs' pet "birther" story "dead" -- and saying anyone who "is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef" -- Klein caved in to Dobbs, reversing himself completely. In a statement to Washington Post Co. blogger Greg Sargent, Klein defended Dobbs and stated, "I think no good journalist would ever say that a particular story will never be covered again. Every day brings new facts, new pegs." Additionally, according to Sargent, "Klein ... took a shot at Dobbs' critics, saying they're politically motivated: 'I understand that people with a partisan point of view from one extreme or anther might get annoyed that certain subjects are aired.' "

This raises the troubling question of who is really calling the shots at CNN.  It's hard to see how anyone can believe CNN is the "most trusted name in news" when its own president can't stand by his less-than-day-old word. CNN's "Lou Dobbs problem" just got a whole lot worse.

Other major stories this week:

A banner week for Murdoch's media empire

It was a banner week for Rupert Murdoch, whose media outlets reminded the nation again of their redeeming social and journalistic value. Sigh.

On Monday's edition of The O'Reilly Factor, retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a Fox News military analyst, taught America what it means to support the troops. Three weeks ago, 23-year-old Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl of Hailey, Idaho, was taken hostage by Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The circumstances of his abduction remain unclear, with some reports indicating that he was taken by force, while others indicate that he voluntarily abandoned his post. Either way, the people of Hailey are hoping for his safe return.

But not Peters, who stunningly remarked that if Bergdahl had in fact deserted his unit, then "the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills." No admonishment came from Bill O'Reilly. His words ignited a firestorm of criticism. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reported that Pentagon officials felt Peters' commentary "could endanger" the life of Bergdahl, while on CNN, columnist John Avalon said that the "wingnut" comment had "crossed the line." Before long, a bipartisan group of 23 veterans serving in Congress had demanded an official apology from Roger Ailes, and Rep. Eric Massa, himself a 24-year veteran of the Navy, had called for both O'Reilly and Peters to be fired from Fox. But neither O'Reilly nor Peters apologized. Instead, two days later, they said that they did wish for the soldier's safe return, but also speculated that he might be "crazy." The following day, Peters attacked Bergdahl again, this time on Steve Malzberg's radio show, where he referred to him as a "deserter" and said a reported story about Bergdahl's girlfriend was a "tissue of lies."

At the same time that the Murdoch-led right-wing media machine was savaging the reputation of a U.S. soldier being held captive overseas, it was disseminating surreptitiously taken near-pornographic images of popular ESPN reporter Erin Andrews. The nude pictures had been culled from a video taken of Andrews through a peephole while she was staying at a hotel. O'Reilly chose to air the images in a segment titled "Did You See That?" His goal, he said during a moment of particularly robust logic, was to prove the "criminal intent" of those involved. The Murdoch-owned (or more aptly, Murdoch-destroyed) New York Post also ran with the pictures, a decision that ESPN called "beyond the pale" before it banished Post reporters from its TV and radio networks.

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert discusses how Lou Dobbs is fueling a "birther" bonfire and why the TV nets should have carried Obama's press conference earlier this week, while Jamison Foser looks at the media privileging opposition to abortion.

Don't forget to order your autographed copy of Eric Boehlert's compelling new book, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press (Free Press, May 2009).

Do you Facebook or Twitter?

If you use the social networking site Facebook, be sure to join the official Media Matters page and those of our senior fellows Eric Boehlert, Jamison Foser, and Karl Frisch as well. You can also follow Media Matters, Boehlert, Foser, and Frisch on Twitter.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary.

This Wednesday on his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News' Glenn Beck blew up on a caller who dared to challenge his unyielding, misleading war against health care reform. After patronizing the angry caller for several minutes, Beck "los[t]" his "mind," screaming at the caller: "Get off my phone you little pinhead!" Since then, the disturbing exchange has been burning up YouTube and is currently ranked the #5 video overall with more than 350,000 views. MSNBC's David Shuster and Tamron Hall even highlighted the clip as an example of how conservative "anger" has "intensified." Capping things off, Beck's screaming fit spawned a hilarious YouTube user-generated remix titled: "Glenn Beck 'Get Off My Phone' Radio Freak Out (Twilight Vampire Metal Remix)."

Coverage of health care, though, has been anything but funny of late.

This week, the Drudge Report, Fox News Channel, Fox Business and CNBC's The Kudlow Report ran with a chart released by congressional Republicans that day -- just one day after House Democrats introduced their health care reform bill -- that purported to show "the complex health care reform proposal by Democratic congressional leaders." The release from Rep. Kevin Brady (TX) about the chart, titled "BAFFLING FLOW CHART; Public Gets Peek at Complicated Bureaucracy in Democratic Health Care Plan," stated that the chart "depicts how the health care system would be organized at the national level if the Democrats' plan became law. These new levels of bureaucracy, agencies, organization and programs will all be put directly between the patient and their health care."

Fox News' Sean Hannity hosted Bill O'Reilly ambush-producer-extraordinaire Griff Jenkins, who described the chart as "Candyland," noting that "whatever it is, it's a lot of government between you and your doctor," while syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, also on Fox, touted the chart by saying it makes the health care bill "look like an absurd Rube Goldberg device."

The conservative media's promotion of the House Republican chart harkens back to the media attention devoted in 1994 to a similar misleading chart -- distributed by the office of then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter -- that then-Senate Republican leader Bob Dole claimed illustrated "what the health care bureaucracy would look like under" President Clinton's health care reform plan.

It really was a textbook example of how the right-wing noise machine operates. Media Matters produced a chart of its own documenting the media's web of misinformation on the subject, illustrating the disturbingly common pattern of conservative spin making its way from a Republican politician's press release to the Drudge Report to Fox News and other outlets on the right. Additionally, I discussed the subject as a guest on MSNBC Live noting, in part, that the conservative movement has been using the media to attack health care reform efforts for more than 70 years.

Not to be left out in the world of insane health care claims, an editorial by the conservative Investor's Business Daily actually claimed that the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." The claim is false, of course, but that didn't stop Rush Limbaugh, the Media Research Center or a host of other media conservatives from advancing the delusional line of attack on reform.

Other Major Stories This Week:

Crazy uncle Pat goes after Sotomayor

Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings took place this week, which provided one final opportunity for her conservative critics to dust off the same set of attacks they unsuccessfully employed shortly after her nomination was announced. It also provided MSNBC's Pat Buchanan with an opportunity to once again test how much vitriol and hatred the peacock-branded cable network is willing to broadcast under the label of "political analysis."

In the span of a few days, Buchanan declared Sotomayor to be a "militant liberal Latina" of limited intellect who had never written any law review articles and who harbored "a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males." (White men are never prejudiced, in case you were wondering.) After again explaining how Sotomayor is nothing more than an "affirmative action" pick who had been "appointed because she's a Latina, and a Hispanic, and a woman," Buchanan said he didn't "understand" the idea of affirmative action for Hispanics, seeing as they had never suffered through slavery. "This has been a country built, basically, by white folks," he finally told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, for which she roundly rebuked him. "You're playing with fire," she said during a heated exchange, adding, "[Y]ou're living in the 1950s."

Which brings us back to the question Media Matters' Jamison Foser posed just six short weeks ago: What would Pat Buchanan have to say to get himself fired from MSNBC?

And what, you might ask, of Sotomayor's testimony itself? Fox News' Glenn Beck was so anxious to deride the proceedings that he began criticizing the questioning of the nominee a day before questioning had actually begun. Seriously. Fox News, meanwhile, wasn't particularly intent on showing what the Democratic members had to say, explaining that they might skip one "here or there" because the large Democratic majority meant there were more Democrats on the committee than Republicans. At Fox News, elections just don't have consequences. And why would they care, what with the "all-stars" on the Republican side of the ledger "scuffing ... up" the witness, as Carl Cameron put it. But in the sake of fairness, not everyone at Fox agreed. Sen. Lindsey Graham's airing of sexist, anonymous gripes about Sotomayor were too much even for anchor Megyn Kelly to accept -- although they sounded perfectly acceptable to a host of other reporters at the "fair and balanced" network.

It was perhaps Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III who led the most charmed life this week. Not only did Fox fawn over his line of questioning, the New York Times quoted his statement that there is "no place in the courtroom" for empathy without mentioning his support of Justice Samuel Alito, who spoke at length about his compassion for people involved in immigration and discrimination cases during his own confirmation hearings. Numerous media outlets also reported Sessions' statement that "I will not vote for -- and no senator should vote for -- an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court," without noting the crucial Alito context. Major broadcasts ignored conservative hypocrisy on empathy, too, although CNN's Kyra Phillips seemed to get it about right. But this pales in comparison to the fact that major newspapers failed to report on Sessions' alleged history of racial insensitivity in stories discussing his questioning of Sotomayor. Compare this to the endless discussion and distorted versions of Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment, and you'll come away from the whole thing shaking your head.

Darth Cheney and the CIA controversy

As details continue to trickle out about Dick Cheney's reported role in keeping Congress in the dark about a CIA counterterrorism program, Liz Cheney, the former veep's daughter, took to the airwaves yet again to mount his defense.

MSNBC's Morning Joe hosted the younger, less scary Cheney to discuss recent reports that her father instructed the CIA not to disclose to Congress an intelligence program that CIA director Leon Panetta recently discontinued. Cheney repeatedly defended her father during the interview, and at one point stated, "[Dick Cheney] doesn't comment on classified programs, and obviously I'm not going to comment on classified programs on his behalf." Of course, the Morning Joe crew never asked her to explain what conversations she's had with Dick Cheney about CIA practices and policies during the Bush administration, or whether her father did in fact provide her with classified information that he reportedly withheld from Congress.

Then again, why would anyone ask such tough questions? After all, just last weekend Fox's Chris Wallace was asking whether he was "overly cynical" in thinking Democrats "just trot[ted] out" Dick Cheney because he's always a pretty good "whipping boy."

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert discusses Saradise Lost: How Alaska bloggers dethroned Sarah Palin; Jamison Foser looks at the real story of the Sotomayor hearings; and Karl Frisch says, "I guess you could say she's been 'sotomayored.' "

Don't forget to order your autographed copy of Eric Boehlert's compelling new book, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press (Free Press, May 2009).

Do you Facebook or Twitter?

If you use the social networking site Facebook, be sure to join the official Media Matters page and those of our senior fellows Eric Boehlert, Jamison Foser and Karl Frisch as well.  You can also follow Media Matters, Boehlert, Foser and Frisch on Twitter!

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary.