Media Matters for America - County Fair

Eric Boehlert: Bipartisan agreement that Chris Matthews ought to start apologizing

Eric Boehlert — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:38:59 EST

From Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online:

MSNBC reached a new shameful low tonight when Chris Matthews referred to West Point as an "enemy camp." He was trying to convey his surprise that Barack Obama would go to such a place, somewhere, he said, where Paul Wolfowitz would be more comfortable.

Chris, he's commander-in-chief.

Agreed.

Eric Hananoki: Fox's John Lott probably not the best person to complain about "climate-gate" and distorting research

Eric Hananoki — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:28:50 EST

In a November 30 piece, FoxNews.com contributor John Lott joins the conservative freak-out over "climate-gate," claiming that "CRU's temperature data and all of the research done with it are now in question" and "[t]here is no precedent for so many academics engaging in coordinated efforts to distort research for political ends."

We've already debunked much of the hysteria over "climate-gate," but Lott probably isn't the best person to complain about research integrity.

In 2003, it was revealed that Lott had been defending the integrity of his own research online over the previous three years under the pseudonym "Mary Rosh." In one posting, Lott/Mary gushed: "I have to say that [Lott] was the best professor I ever had." Lott was trashed by liberals and conservatives alike; Michelle Malkin wrote that "Lott's invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work." Lott has also been caught using fraudulent data for his research.

More recently, Lott was criticized for botching research to cry voter fraud in the Franken-Coleman recount. Veteran Minnesota reporter and media critic David Brauer called Lott's purported research "baseless sliming" and "disgusting," while Minneapolis Star Tribune editor Glenn Howatt said that Lott's "numbers are simply wrong."

Commenter M. Rosh, however, calls Lott's "climate-gate" piece "brilliant."

Eric Boehlert: This is what happens when the Messiah tries to run a newspaper

Eric Boehlert — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:47:48 EST

The New York Times today has a rundown on the latest woes at the Washington Times, which, astonishingly, now has a disappearing circulation of just 67,000 readers. That's right, 67,000. There are probably penny shoppers with bigger circulation that today's WashTimes.

The NY Times details what others have been reporting in recent weeks, that a family feud among the children of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church, has put the Times in the middle of the battle, with Unification Church money from Asia that keeps the Times afloat reportedly being cut off.

What caught my eye was the vague way the NY Times described Rev. Moon and his relationship with the newspaper:

The Washington Times has always been something of a vanity project for Mr. Moon, the father, who was endlessly willing to lose money on his paper and its editorial page.

Vanity project? That's an understatement. By some estimates, Moon has lost more than $1 billion on the Times, which strikes me as something more than a "vanity project." And who exactly is Rev. Moon? According to the NYT article, he's simply the "founder" of the Unification Church. i.e. A man of God.

Why the traditional press regularly ignores the truth about Rev. Moon remains a mystery. After all, neither Moon nor his followers have ever been shy about his messianic ways.

For instance, from trueloveking.net [emphasis added]:

Here you are invited to discover why Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon was chosen by God and called by Jesus Christ to fulfill the mission of the Messiah, Savior and Lord of the Second Advent with the responsibility to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Together with his loving wife, Mrs. Hak Ja Moon, they are the True Parents of Heaven, Earth and all humanity who embody the true love of God.

Wouldn't that strike most journalists as rather odd, the fact that the man Jesus Christ chose to save mankind is now running a money-losing daily in Washington, D.C.? Shouldn't that be part of any story about the Times' fate, the fact that its founder was sent by God to create a new kingdom here on earth?

But today's New York Times, like most news outlets covering the loopy Moonie newspaper, politely looks away from Moon's odd proclamations and simply describe the newspaper as being "conservative."

BTW, here's an insider's view of the WashTimes:

Eric Boehlert: Surprise! Breitbart, Big Government and Glenn Beck don't know what a "hate crime" is

Eric Boehlert — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:40:44 EST

Yep, more Kenneth Gladney fiction from a right-wing crowd that simply will not stop making stuff up about a long-forgotten St. Louis incident that for some reason has been elevated into right-wing folklore, facts be damned. (For background see here, here, here, and here.)

But here's the latest: Breitbart and his "journalism" site Big Government, along with Glenn Beck and his trusty legal analyst Judge Napolitano, all suggest that hate crime charges ought to be brought against the union "thugs" who are charged with beating up Kenneth Gladney outside a town hall health care forum in August.

They're the same SEIU reps who last week were charged by St. Louis prosecutors with "misdemeanor ordinance violations," even though Breitbart and his fervent fiction writers had been claiming for months that Gladney had been savagely beaten and kicked and dragged around by the union "thugs" who were under direct orders from the White House to beat people up. (I kid you not.)

County officials didn't see it that way and instead slapped the SEIU union reps with very light charges. So now, Breitbart and company insist Gladney was the victim of a hate crime. Of course, nobody has been charged with that offense, but Big Government and Glenn Beck don't care because they have proof a hate crime was committed!

The proof? On that August night Gladney told police that one of the union reps, just prior to hitting him, said, "What kind of nigger are you"? (Gladney is black.)

According to Beck and Breitbart and Judge Napolitano, that means Gladney was the victim of a "hate crime." (See below.) After all, here's the legal definition that's most often used to describe the crime [emphasis added]:

A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.

In this case, the right-wing claim is that the union rep in question was prejudiced against Gladney's race.

A compelling case, right? Except here's the part the amateur Perry Mason's always leave out of their sudden (and previously well-hidden) desire to see hate crimes prosecuted: the union rep charged with hitting Gladney -- the same union rep who allegedly called Gladney a "nigger" -- is also black. His name is Elston McCowan.

Meaning, Gladney, a black man, was allegedly punched by McCowan, a black man, and now Breitbart and Beck want prosecutors to file hate-crime charges because McCowan was prejudiced against Gladney's race; because McCowan's assault was driven by his hatred of Gladney's race. That, despite the fact that Gladney and McCowan share the same race.

I'm no legal eagle, but I'm pretty sure I know why prosecutors didn't file hate crime charges in this case.

UPDATED: Breitbart sure does have a tough time trying to decipher the law.

UPDATED: Breitbart's star witness, a far-right ideologue who earlier told his Gladney tale on Breitbart's Big Government site, has now changed his story about what happened that night in St. Louis. Suddenly the witness did not see Gladney get punched in the face. Gee, think lawyers for the charged union reps will make a big deal about that when it's time to adjudicate the case?

Media Matters staff: WND's Farah: Rosenthal "spread[s]" anti-Semitism, Obama "publicly supports ethnic cleansing in the Middle East against Jews"

Media Matters staff — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:40:29 EST

From WorldNetDaily editor and CEO Joseph Farah's December 1 column:

Imagine any previous president appointing an "anti-Semitism czar" who blames Israel in its fight for survival in the roughest neighborhood in the world as not the victim of anti-Semitism but the cause of at least some of it.

That's what happened last week when Barack Obama, the man who doesn't believe Jews in Israel have an inherent right to build and repair homes and offices, appointed Hannah Rosenthal to this newly created post.

"I'll tell you point-blank: I have two grown daughters, and I didn't think that my kids were going to have to deal with some of the same anti-Semitism that I did as the daughter of Holocaust survivors," Rosenthal said. "It's a scary time, with people losing the ability to differentiate between a Jew, any Jew, and what's going on in Israel."

How would you interpret that statement?

Here's how I would explain it: "It's wrong to condemn Jews per se, but attacking the one and only Jewish state, home to half the Jewish population, isolated as it might be among a world of Jew-haters, is fair game."

What else should we expect from Obama?

This is the president who publicly supports ethnic cleansing in the Middle East against Jews - not just in Gaza, not just in Judea and Samaria, not just in East Jerusalem, but in solidly Jewish neighborhoods of the capital of the Jewish state never before placed on the table for negotiations with the Jew-haters who demand a "Palestinian state" free of all Jews.

It would seem if you were sincere about fighting the worst kind of anti-Semitism in the world today you would be working for the removal of Barack Obama from office, not promoting his policies.

But Hannah Rosenthal is beguiled by Obama's demands for Israel to lay down and be carved up by those whose history of political involvement places them as the political disciples of Adolf Hitler's Nazis.

[...]

Now Obama has appointed an "anti-Semitism czar" who believes even Israel's most appeasement-oriented leaders were warmongers.

I admit I never expected any president to name an "anti-Semitism czar." Yet, I kind of expected that if one were ever named, the purpose would be to fight anti-Semitism, not spread it.

Previously:

Witch hunt: Right wing now falsely claiming Hannah Rosenthal is an "anti-Israel lobbyist"

WorldNetDaily smears J Street as " 'pro-Hamas' "

Media Matters staff: NY Times : Dobbs in talks with CNBC

Media Matters staff — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:16:45 EST

From a December 1 New York Times blog post:

Lou Dobbs, who is likely to make a decision about his post-CNN career this month, has held talks with the business news network CNBC in recent weeks, two people with knowledge of the discussions say.

Mr. Dobbs, a free agent whose exit from CNN last month prompted speculation about plans for a political bid, could conceivably host a prime time program for CNBC. He could also become a commentator for the business news network.

The people who spoke about the talks requested anonymity because they were not authorized by their employers to speak about it.

Previously:

UPDATED: So, what really happened to Lou Dobbs?

Eric Boehlert: At Fox TV, war is newsworthy but health care reform is not

Eric Boehlert — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:08:01 EST

What other message are viewers supposed to take away from the fact that Rupert Murdoch's Fox TV, after refusing to air President Obama's primetime address to Congress in September about health care reform, has decided it will air Obama's primetime address tonight about future U.S. plans for the war in Afghanistan?

This is just amazing. Will Murdoch's Fox TV now decide, based on the topic being addressed, whether it will grant the President of the United States access to its airwaves?

Eric Boehlert: Former right-wing blogger details his political divorce

Eric Boehlert — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:19:22 EST

There are so few defections among A-list bloggers, so few examples of prominent writers walking away from their side of the fight, that it's worth pondering this post from Little Green Footballs. Once a proud attack colleague of Michelle Malkin's during the Bush year, LGF has been making plain for some time now its growing disdain for the right-wing blogosphere and what LGF sees as its increasingly bankrupt view on politics, as well its hateful and unhinged response to the Obama administration. Now the LGF blogger details the reasons why he was forced to abandon the movement.

It will be interesting to see what kind of response LGF's declaration gets from his former colleagues. To date, they've mostly dealt with his defection by hurling insults LGF's way, which of course, only confirms what LGF has been saying about the right-wing blogosphere and its lack of substance.

It's also interesting to note that another A-list blogger, Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House, has also made plain his growing disgust with the hate-filled, far-right blogosphere. (Note to Politico's John Harris, three will make a trend!)

For LGF, the reasons he parted ways with the right revolve around its support for "fascists," "bigotry," "religious fanaticism," "anti-science craziness," "homophobic bigotry," 'anti-government lunacy," "hate speech," "conspiracy theories," "anti-Islamic bigotry, and "hatred for President Obama."

Yep, that's today's right-wing blogosphere.

: So who's still advertising on Beck ? November 30 edition...

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:44:46 EST

Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his November 25 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

Rosland Capital
The Weekly Standard
News Corp. (Fox News)
Foundation for a Better Life
National Geographic Channel
Goldline
Lifelock-Sherlock Holmes
Roche (AccuCheck)
Beckchristmas.com
News Corp. (Fox News Channel)
US Chamber of Commerce
National Review
American Advisors Group
News Corp. (O'Reilly Factor)
Rosland Capital
NewsCorp. (Shepherd Smith)
Goldline
IRS Tax Agreements
News Corp. (Fox News College challenge)
Conservatives for Patients Rights
LifeLock

Jamison Foser: Jon Meacham's self-contradictory assault on Barack Obama's legitimacy

Jamison Foser — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:40:59 EST

Newsweek's Jon Meacham argues that Dick Cheney should run for president in 2012. There's so much wrong with Meacham's thinking, it's hard to know where to start. But let's try the beginning:

I think we should be taking the possibility of a Dick Cheney bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 more seriously, for a run would be good for the Republicans and good for the country. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.)

Really? We're still on this liberals-drink-lattes crap? Yawn.

Back to Meacham:

Why? Because Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people.

Right there, in his third sentence, Jon Meacham gave away his little game: He seeks to suggest that there is currently "ambiguity" about the will of the people. That two straight elections in which the Democrats kicked the Republicans' butts -- so much so that Barack Obama carried Indiana and North Carolina -- were somehow ambiguous and don't count. That Barack Obama isn't really a legitimate president, because he didn't have to defeat Dick Cheney to get the job.

This is stupid and dangerous.

Meacham:

The best way to settle arguments is by having what we used to call full and frank exchanges about the issues, and then voting.

A) Not really and B) We've actually had a few of those voting things recently, despite what Meacham seems to think. And we'll have a few more in the future, with or without Dick Cheney.

Meacham:

One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction.

Right. I remember the Democrats being so convinced that President Bush wasn't legitimate and didn't have a mandate that they filibustered his 2001 tax cuts (which were significantly larger than those he campaigned on) and his education bill and tried to impeach him as soon as they got the opportunity and ... Oh. Wait. Never mind. That didn't happen. None of it did. Jon Meacham's both-sides-are-guilty paint-by-numbers approach to column-writing is nothing but a lie.

Also: Meacham's complaints about "the opposition party" refusing to concede that "the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate" to govern are a little odd coming so soon after Meacham refused to concede that President Obama, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to govern.

More Meacham:

A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama's unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa.

Well, no, that isn't really what elections mean. And if it was ... Well, again, we just had two straight elections in which the results were pretty damn unambiguous, no matter how badly Meacham wants to pretend otherwise.

Back to Meacham (skipping ahead a bit):

A campaign would also give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way. As John McCain pointed out in the fall of 2008, he is not Bush. Nor is Cheney, but the former vice president would make the case for the harder-line elements of the Bush world view.

Well, actually, the direct way to "adjudicate" the George W. Bush years would be to, you know, put people on trial for crimes they committed during those years. An election eight years after the fact is an awfully indirect way to adjudicate anything.

Anyway, here's the basic problem: Meacham simultaneously downplays the importance of elections in determining the will of the people (by pretending that the "thumpin'" Bush took in 2006 and Barack Obama's convincing 2008 victory were meaningless) and overstates it (by pretending that the Obama-Cheney Steel Cage Death Match of his schoolboy dreams would forever remove any ambiguity.)

There is, then one impressive thing about Meacham's column: He manages to be completely wrong in two opposite directions simultaneously.

Jamison Foser: Still crazy after all these months

Jamison Foser — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:10:51 EST

Maybe you thought the crazy Birthers over at WorldNetDaily had given up on their nutty campaign to prove that Barack Obama isn't really president, or whatever it is they're after, and dedicated their full attention to peddling silly get-rich-quick schemes. Nope:

Yeah, uh ... Good luck with that, fellas.

Jamison Foser: WaPo 's Bacon just uses misleading labels, he doesn't explain them

Jamison Foser — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:58:43 EST

Last week, Washington Post reporter Perry Bacon suggested GOP Sen. George Voinovich would vote against health care reform because he is a "strong fiscal conservative." As I noted at the time, that's an odd use of the label "fiscal conservative," given that health care reform would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reduce the deficit.

Well, today, a Post reader asked Bacon about that:

I didn't understand you last week: Perry, in last week's chat there was a strange back-and-forth & wondered if you might clarify it for us today? Here goes:

"Arlington, VA: Of all the Senators, only Voinowich of Ohio, a Republican, did not vote. As he voted on other legislation that day, could the non-vote indicate that he might be supportive of the health care bill?

Perry Bacon Jr.: I'm pretty sure he will be a no, he's retiring, but known as a strong fiscal conservative."

But the CBO says the Senate health care bill would actually - reduce - the deficit, so why does being a "strong fiscal conservative" make Voinovich likely to vote - against - legislation that would reduce the deficit.

Do you really think a strong "fiscal conservative" has any business voting against deficit-reducing health care reform measures?

washingtonpost.com: Post Politics: Senate brings health-care bill to floor

Perry Bacon Jr.: I suspect Voinovich will say the bill costs almost $1 trillion a year* and shouldn't be passed. This is the GOP view of the bill. I will let everyone define fiscal conservative on their own.

Oh, come on. Perry Bacon introduced the phrase "fiscal conservative" to the discussion, offering it up as a reason why someone would vote against the bill. And now he says everyone can define it for themselves? What an absurd cop-out.

Bacon owns the phrase. He should tell us what he meant by it, and explain why fiscal conservatives oppose things that reduce the deficit (and, in doing so, consider what that says about fiscal conservatives' anti-deficit rhetoric), or he should simply say that he screwed up and shouldn't have used the phrase. But he can't use the label as an explanation for Voinovich's vote, then pretend it isn't his responsibility to define the label.

* As Bacon later acknowledged, "$1 trillion a year" is obviously false.

Eric Boehlert: If newsmaker Rick Warren is your guest, shouldn't you ask him relevant questions?

Eric Boehlert — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:42:00 EST

Warren took a star turn on Meet the Press over the weekend for a Thanksgiving-flavored MTP. But host David Gregory didn't press the news-making (i.e. political) pastors on many topics. And specifically, Gregory never asked Warren about his previous association with a rabidly anti-gay Uganda minister who's been making headlines.

As Newsweek noted on Sunday:

Now Warren's on the defensive again, this time for his affiliation with Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor who has endorsed proposed legislation in Uganda that makes certain homosexual acts punishable by life in prison or even, in some cases, death. Ssempa has made appearances at Saddleback and has been embraced warmly by Warren and his wife, Kay.

Newsweek clearly spotted the news swirling around Warren this weekend, Why didn't Gregory? Asks Mediaite's Michael Triplett:

So why no Uganda questions from Gregory? You have the heir to Billy Graham’s bully pulpit on your show for over 20 minutes, and not a single question about why he works with leaders in Uganda who support the death penalty for gay people as part of AIDS reduction efforts?

Jamison Foser: Why does Howard Kurtz even do these Q&As?

Jamison Foser — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:41:10 EST

I've previously noted that Howard Kurtz is apparently incapable of understanding very straightforward questions -- or unwilling to do so -- posed to him during his weekly online Q&A sessions. Here's another example, from earlier today:

State Dinner Gate Crashers: Ethics question regarding that couple that crashed the WH dinner...I understand it's news about the security breach, etc., etc. ...BUT, it seems they did it for the attention and the spotlight, and even a friend has been quoted as saying they are enjoying the media attention...Is there ever a discussion as to whether, while reporting the story, newcasts should refrain from showing their pictures? I mean, when someone rushes on the field at a sports event, the practice has been for some time NOT to show them on TV so as not to encourage/reward that behavior....In short, could this story be covered with out giving the couple the screen time they are craving? I for one feel like the newscasts should now decline to show the footage of them inside or their Facebook pages....seems like they are being rewarded for a dumb stunt..

Howard Kurtz: Yes, the media have made them into instant celebrities, beyond what is necessary to cover the security breach that required the Secret Service to apologize. But the Salahis, with their tangled history, are also an interesting story. No question this was overplayed over a slow holiday weekend. But I must say, having been out of town to visit family, that there is a heckuva lot of interest in them among ordinary folks who aren't obsessed with politics. [Emphasis added]

Notice that Kurtz doesn't come within a mile of actually addressing the question? And why not? It isn't a particularly controversial one; it doesn't directly challenge Kurtz's own performance or that of his employers (we know he ducks those questions.) There's no reason not to address it. But this happens all the time.

I can only assume he is either incapable of understanding straightforward and reasonable questions about the media (in which case you have to wonder why two of the nation's leading news organizations pay him good money to write and talk about the media) or he has nothing but contempt and disinterest for his readers, and doesn't bother to look at what they're actually asking (in which case you have to wonder why he does these Q&As at all.)

In any case, it does nothing to help the public's understanding of the news media for the nation's most prominent media critic to be so incapable of dealing with straightforward questions.

Jamison Foser: Gee, I wonder why Howard Kurtz won't criticize Mark Halperin?

Jamison Foser — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:21:56 EST

A couple of days ago, I noted that Mark Halperin's idiotic portrayal of Sen. Mary Landrieu as having semen in her hair hadn't drawn as much attention and criticism as you might expect -- particularly given the widespread media attention that greeted Newsweek's use of a photo in which Sarah Palin posed for in a running suit.

Here's an example: Washington Post/CNN media critic Howard Kurtz addressed the Palin photo controversy on the November 22 broadcast of CNN's Reliable Sources.

But Kurtz stayed silent about Halperin's stupid photoshop tricks during yesterday's Reliable Sources. (Kurtz hasn't mentioned the matter in his work for the Washington Post, either.)

Oh, yeah -- Mark Halperin works for Time magazine, whose web site hosted his offensive doctored photo of Sen. Landrieu. Time and CNN are corporate siblings.

But Howard Kurtz would never let such considerations affect his reporting, would he?

(H/T: News Corpse)