Media Matters for America - Weekly wrap-up

Media Matters: The Palin chronicles

Simon Maloy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:02:22 EST

It was all too predictable.

From the moment Sarah Palin was airlifted out of the Alaska hinterlands by John McCain and plopped onto the national stage, she's been telling anyone who will listen how poorly she's been treated by the media, the Democrats, the blogosphere, etc. After she did her part in scuttling McCain's already foundering campaign, she added to her list of personal persecutors the same McCain staffers who made her a household name in the first place. The conservative media have cheered on her personal pity party every step of the way, adamantly refusing to acknowledge that Sarah Palin -- perfect Sarah Palin, conservatism's hockey-mom messiah -- has done anything wrong.

So it was inevitable that when Palin and her ghostwriter teamed up to produce her newly release memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life, it would be anything but a tedious exercise in self-martyrdom. The second half of the book, which recounts her time with McCain and the aftermath of the presidential campaign, is a litany of complaints peppered with absolutions of any errors on her part. Palin's account of her disastrous interviews with CBS anchor Katie Couric consists mainly of attacks on Couric for "badgering" her, "edit[ing] out substantive answers," and trying to "frame a 'gotcha' moment." She chastises McCain campaign staffers for having "no script to begin with," for not following her advice and talking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and for nurturing the "wardrobe fairy tale" so they could throw her "under the media bus" after the campaign ended.

When not complaining about how ill-treated she was, Palin wildly revised her own history, showcasing her penchant for falsehoods both big and small. She claims that the media were reporting "lies" about the Bridge to Nowhere, when it was she who, from the very start, lied about her own position on the bridge. She claims that she immediately liked the idea of going on Saturday Night Live, even though internal campaign emails show that she was initially reluctant because of the show's "gross" treatment of her family, going so far as to call the SNL crew "whack." She claims that there is no aerial hunting in Alaska, even though she proposed legislation supporting that very practice. The list goes on and on.

But remember, this is Sarah Palin we're dealing with here, and no matter how self-discrediting and ridiculous her book was, the conservative media would leap to her defense, claiming (once again) that she was the victim of a vicious liberal onslaught. Palin herself got the ball rolling before the book was even released, chastising the Associated Press (which got its hands on a copy prior to the release date) for assigning 11 reporters to fact-check it, saying that their time would be better spent fact-checking "what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial." Palin made no attempt to respond to the several factual errors and distortions the AP found, and neither did Fox News, which picked up where Palin left off and ran a breathless segment wondering why, exactly, the AP had assigned so many reporters to the book.

Then there's Rush Limbaugh, Palin's staunchest defender and perhaps the conservative media personality most disconnected from reality -- two traits that are in no way mutually exclusive. On November 13, Rush proclaimed that Going Rogue is "one of the most substantive policy books I've read." He must have received a special unabridged edition, because to every other observer -- even Fox News campaign reporter/operative Carl Cameron -- the book's policy prescriptions are few and far between, and rarely more detailed than "Ronald Reagan was right." In the conservative blogosphere, the adoration was even more comical: John Ziegler, the devoted Palinista who is -- and forgive the indelicate bluntness, but there is no better word -- an idiot, called the book the "greatest literary achievement by a political figure in my lifetime."

Meanwhile, the mainstream press ties itself into knots with their obsessive Palin coverage, trying to explain how it is that a riotously unpopular and ill-informed ex-governor speaks for legions of Americans. Newsweek undercut whatever merit its critical analysis of Palin's role in the political world had by festooning it with sexist Palin imagery. David Brooks continues to vacillate in his opinion of Palin, at various times calling her "smart," "a joke," "courageous and likeable," and a "cancer." PBS' Gwen Ifill said women "will be drawn to her story," even though Palin's popularity among women is in the toilet.

None of this is to say that Palin isn't shrewd. She's figured out that she can say whatever she pleases, lie freely, quit elected office to become a professional Facebook bomb-thrower, cash in on a ridiculous book she didn't even write, and still enjoy the adoration of her conservative fan base, as well as the attentions of the mainstream press.

Media Matters: Dobbs, dropped

Simon Maloy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:25:24 EST

On July 15, Lou Dobbs introduced a story on his CNN news program by saying that "new questions are raised about the president's eligibility to be president." Unbeknownst to the long-time cable news veteran, the moment he uttered those words, he embarked upon a steep downward trajectory that, just a few months later, would result in his departure from CNN, the network he had called home for the better part of three decades.

At least, that's the story told by the New York Post this morning, which reported that Dobbs' coverage of the phony controversy surrounding President Obama's birth certificate ran afoul of CNN president Jon Klein, who sent a memo to Dobbs' staff telling them to knock it off with all the "birther" stories. The Post also reported that Klein's memo enraged Dobbs -- he hadn't let facts, sense, or reason prevent him from covering the "birther" garbage, so it was unlikely that the network president could stop him either. It's a tragicomic tale, when you think about it. Dobbs, after 30 years of success on cable news, decided to make his last stand in defense of a story whose primary agonist is a lawyer/dentist who claims to be the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Obama, the Justice Department, and Microsoft.

The Post's reporting doesn't name any sources, which isn't surprising, but when you place it next to The New York Times' initial story on Dobbs' departure, which reported that Klein told Dobbs he could keep his opinions confined to the radio or leave CNN, a theme emerges -- CNN finally had had enough of Dobbs' nonsense. But that raises an obvious question -- what took so long? Make no mistake, "birther"-ism is a special kind of disqualifying offense when it comes to legitimate journalism, and Klein's ultimatum to Dobbs, if true, was completely justified and the right thing to do. But Dobbs' dalliance with the "birthers" was only his most recent descent into conspiratorial race-baiting.

By all indications, the wheels started turning on this after Media Matters began highlighting Dobbs' "birther" coverage, building upon years of assiduous documentation of Dobbs' deleterious influence on the national dialogue. Media Matters was also a lead partner in the Drop Dobbs Coalition, educating Dobbs' advertisers about his incendiary rhetoric and false reporting and persuading major corporations to stop advertising on Lou Dobbs Tonight. Long before the 2008 election, long before Dobbs ever had the opportunity to lie about Obama's birth certificate, he was waging a smear campaign against Hispanics and immigrants and using his cable news perch to spin elaborate conspiracy theories with no basis in fact.

You can go all the way back to 2005, when Dobbs' correspondents first started reporting that undocumented immigrants were responsible for a spike in leprosy in the United States. That was completely wrong, and when confronted with the evidence, he refused to correct the false reporting, instead actively defending it or simply pretending it never happened. In 2006, Dobbs started in on "La Reconquista," the idea that Mexico is attempting to retake the land it lost to the United States in the 19th century by sending, in Dobbs' words, "illegal immigrants" to the U.S. as "an army of invaders." On Dobbs' show, a visit from the Mexican president was described as a "Mexican military incursion." And let's not forget that it was during one of these "Reconquista" reports that Dobbs featured a graphic sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that "oppose[s] all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called 'affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."

Dobbs' other big story of 2006 was the so-called North American Union, the alleged effort by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States to "merge" the three countries into a single entity. It's a claim that's so whacked-out that other CNN journalists dismissed it as "a lot of talk in the blogosphere and conspiracy theorists." But Dobbs reported it as fact on his program dozens of times, serving as a sort of port in a storm for the chronically disreputable.

If, as has been reported, CNN's goal has been to mold itself as a "middle of the road" alternative to competitors Fox News and MSNBC, then one has to wonder why the network waited until now to part ways with Dobbs. But if the Post is right in reporting that Dobbs' "birther" coverage was what prompted CNN to say "enough," then that's perfectly understandable, and ultimately they made exactly the right call.

Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good

Karl Frisch — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:12:37 EST

Back in 2001, conservative media figures were adamant. Democratic Party victories at the ballot boxes during the off-year elections had little national significance. Fox News contributor Dick Morris said at the time, "[I]f you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to vote Republicans." Proffering further spin of the GOP losses, Fox News contributor Mort Kondracke said, "We have no way of knowing" how the 2001 outcome would affect the 2002 midterms, a sentiment echoed by conservative writer Michael Barone, who declared on CNN, "I don't think that the issues and personalities" in the Virginia and New Jersey races "are going to be congruent with very many" races in 2002 or 2004. Then there was Laura Ingraham on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes noting that "[b]oth sides are going to spin this," before offering her own spin: "[T]o call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is nonsense."

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.

Media Matters: Fox News isn't news -- this is news?

Brian Frederick — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:45:37 EST

It is perhaps not unsurprising but still disappointing that several in the mainstream media rallied around Fox News this week following the White House's well-warranted castigation of the network as an "arm" of the Republican Party. The most prominent defense of "one of our sister organizations" came from ABC News' Jake Tapper, who was baffled as to why the White House would declare Fox News "not a news organization." On Tuesday, he had the following exchange with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

Tapper: It's escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations "not a news organization" and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one --

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that's a pretty sweeping declaration that they are "not a news organization." How are they any different from, say --

Gibbs: ABC --

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight. Or 5 o'clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a "news organization" -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That's our opinion.

Of course, Tapper was lauded by Fox News and other conservatives. (Which is not the first time.) Glenn Beck called Tapper a "watchdog of freedom," while Sean Hannity praised Tapper's ability to "recognize the great quality of Fox News." Bill O'Reilly said Tapper did "pretty good" and "really challenged" Gibbs, and the Fox & Friends gang called him a "great reporter" for his defense of Fox. Lou Dobbs called it an "extraordinary exchange."

But Tapper's real mistake was suggesting that the White House's criticism of Fox News amounted only to criticism of their "opinion programming or issues ... with certain reports." Tapper's remarks echoed Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente's comments from last week: "It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming."

Putting aside the suggestion that the relentless and vicious assaults on Barack Obama and the administration by Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly alone shouldn't have any bearing on how the White House treats the network, Tapper is ignoring that those shows set the agenda for the rest of the network. And of course, Tapper is ignoring that the attacks of Fox's triumvirate dictate his own network's -- and the rest of the media's -- agenda as well. Is there any doubt that Glenn Beck's war on ACORN -- he's reportedly mentioned ACORN 1,224 times (versus 50 mentions of Al Qaeda) since his Fox News show started -- is the primary reason his network and other media are still talking about the organization? Beck and his fellow Fox News personalities have repeatedly called for Obama administration officials to be fired, asked viewers to dig up information on administration officials, and fearmongered about Obama, his advisers, and his policies. How can that not affect Fox's "news" coverage of those same officials?

Fox's "news" staff regularly conflates commentary and news reporting. The network's "news" reporting is full of smears, falsehoods, deceptive editing, and GOP talking points. Just Thursday morning, the Fox & Friends crew parroted a House Republican press release and repeated its claim that the stimulus impact is "6 million jobs shy of what the administration promised us" since the administration stated "that 3.5 million jobs would be created. And, in fact, the United States has lost 2.7 million since the stimulus plan." However, the administration estimated 3.5 millions jobs created or saved by 2011. It's so much easier to read GOP talking points than actually do journalism!

The problems with Fox News aren't confined to "certain reports." Nor are they confined to Fox's "opinion programming."

Fox has organized and promoted campaigns against the administration. Fox has allowed its personalities to use the network to raise money for conservative PACs -- money that is used for more attacks on the administration.

And Fox News' actual "news" is anything but.

As Media Matters President Eric Burns pointed out this week, "Fox News is the story."

Beck's little red book of smears

On the walls of the Forbidden City, looming over Beijing's Tiananmen Square, there is a giant portrait of Mao Zedong. Mao's specter similarly looms over Glenn Beck's show.

Beck has figured out that Chairman Mao is the best vehicle for him to attack progressives as "communists." After all, communism is still kicking in China -- well, not really, but just enough for Beck to launch McCarthyism 2.0: Great Wall Edition.

And as was the case with Joseph McCarthy's crusade, no connection is too tenuous, no comment too innocuous. Beck's favorite target du jour is White House communications director Anita Dunn -- no doubt because she was the first to call out Fox News for its "war against Barack Obama and the White House."

Beck managed to dig up a speech Dunn gave to graduating students earlier this year in which Dunn called Mao one of her "favorite political philosophers" (she also mentioned Mother Teresa) and related this anecdote:

In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second.

And to think that she was allowed to encourage students to follow their own paths and not do what they are told! Wait a minute, isn't that pretty much the message Beck preaches every day?

Well, no matter. It doesn't matter what she said -- it's that she quoted Chairman Mao! Gasp! You know, like John McCain did -- repeatedly. And Newt Gingrich did. And numerous other conservatives did.

Dunn's reference to Mao even made its way to a straight news story on Monday's Special Report (take note, Jake Tapper).

On Monday, Beck ranted that, because of the overlap in the message of volunteerism from President Obama's "Corporation for National and Community Service and a call for more service and volunteerism" on network television from the Entertainment Industry Foundation, "[i]t's almost like we're living in Mao's China right now" and noted that NBC executive Mitch Metcalf is an "EIF board member," exclaiming, "[M]y God, it can't be." But, predictably, Beck's wild conspiracy theory overlooks that Fox Broadcasting Co. -- which airs Fox News programming and, like Fox News, is owned by News Corp. -- is also participating in EIF's volunteer initiative and has a vice president who sit on EIF's board of directors with Metcalf. Further, News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch sits on EIF's "honorary board of governors."

On Tuesday, Beck moved on to attacking "manufacturing czar" Ron Bloom because he once employed Mao's quote that power stems from the barrel of a gun -- a quote so threatening it can be found on a junior-high boy's Rage Against the Machine T-shirt.

Beck has taken Dunn's and Bloom's employment of these quotes to ridiculous levels, claiming Mao is "the man that [Dunn] turns to most" and that Bloom is the latest in "long line of White House officials who seem to just love Chairman Mao."

(Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs followed Beck's lead again, attacking both Dunn and Bloom over the quotes.)

And of course, it should be noted that Beck's (Chinese) communist witch hunt goes all the way to the top.

In one of his countless bizarre rants in front of a chalkboard last week, Beck started with the premise, "If the president of the United States, Barack Obama, said to you, 'You know who I really love? Chairman Mao.' " With a premise that absurd, you can only guess where it headed. He then proceeded to explain how people like Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, and John Podesta were somehow used to "keep separating" Obama from Mao so people wouldn't see the direct connection between the two (the "six degrees of Obama"). You know, because President Obama loves Chairman Mao.

This from a guy who wrote that McCarthy made the "cries" of communism and socialism a "joke."

Other notable quotes this week:

"The Obama administration going to issue a new medical marijuana policy today, which I'm frankly thankful for folks, because we're going to need to be stoned to live for the next three and a half years." -- Rush Limbaugh on Monday. Limbaugh cleverly dubbed the proposal "Don't Ask, Don't Smell."

"[W]hy doesn't President Obama have his children vaccinated in front of us on TV?" -- Deirdre Imus on Wednesday's Hannity expressing concerns about the safety of the H1N1 vaccine.

"Jerome Corsi, a terrific author, an amazing, amazing book, an important book." -- Lou Dobbs on his radio show Wednesday following an interview with birther and widely discredited smear merchant Corsi.

"What was interesting to me is, just from my perspective having been in a White House, there is a network, MSNBC, that I could have said that about the evening anchors, or some people in the morning or -- I could have taken that tack, but I thought it was not the right thing to do, and I think it's mostly because it's really unproductive, it feels un-American, and it's not inspiring." -- former White House press secretary and Fox News contributor Dana Perino, ignoring her own role in advancing Bush administration attacks on NBC.

This week's media columns

In this week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows, Jamison Foser exposes the absurdities of the comparisons between Obama and Richard Nixon, and Eric Boehlert explains why the NFL and corporate America reject Limbaugh and Beck.

In The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's shows during the past week, Greg Lewis discusses how Rush's conspiracy theorizing is taking a backseat to Glenn Beck's.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Brian Frederick, deputy editorial director at Media Matters for America. He holds a Ph.D. in Communication from the University of Colorado.

Media Matters: Limbaugh's NFL dream slips through his "formerly nicotine-stained fingers"

Karl Frisch — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:51:23 EST

Six years after Rush Limbaugh was forced to resign in disgrace from his 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," the nation's top conservative radio host was dropped from a group seeking to purchase the NFL's St. Louis Rams.

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.

Media Matters: Right again makes an anti-American ass of itself following Obama's Nobel win

Karl Frisch — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:50:08 EST

On Friday, the nation awoke to the news that the Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to President Barack Obama. "I am both surprised and deeply humbled," Obama said that morning. "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership...I will accept this award as a call to action."

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.

Media Matters: Right-wing media lynch mob gay-baits White House, facts be damned

Karl Frisch — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:39:22 EST

For the better part of a week, conservatives in the media have been on a witch hunt for Kevin Jennings, the director of the Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Led by Fox News, the right-wing media have 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."

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?

Media Matters: Move over, Drudge, there's a new sheriff in town

Julie Millican — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:09:38 EST

It used to be common knowledge that Matt Drudge ruled the media's world. These days, Drudge must be jealous. If the past few months have shown us anything, it's that Drudge's position as the media's assignment editor is now filled by Fox News' Glenn Beck.

Beck has made no bones about his desire to shape the media's agenda. He's Fox News' Czar War commander in chief, lead ACORN crusher, resident conspiracy theorist, and favored "rodeo clown," all wrapped into one.

One would think that the mainstream media would be wary of covering stories promoted by a man who, while role-playing as President Obama, pretended to pour gasoline on the "average American" and asked Obama, "[W]hy don't you just set us on fire?" But one would be wrong.

Beck brought to us the 9-12 Project, which served as the inspiration for the 9-12 "March on Washington," when Americans tearfully came together as we did "the day after 9-11" ... to protest taxes, health care reform, government spending, and an African-American who has taken over the White House. Did the media sit out the story of tens of thousands of Beck and Fox News fans invading D.C. to protest these things? Nope. While Fox News claimed that media outlets "missed" the story of the 9-12 protests, as TVNewser.com noted, "those other networks were there" at the 9-12 protests. As Howard Kurtz wrote in The Washington Post, "[T]he other networks indeed covered the protest, which -- like similar demonstrations across the country -- were heavily promoted by Fox, especially talk show host Glenn Beck."

The media have paid equal attention to Beck and Fox News' war on Obama's "czars." Beck led the charge in attacking White House green jobs adviser Van Jones, accusing him of all manner of sins. After ColorOfChange.org -- a group co-founded by Jones -- initiated a campaign against Beck for calling Obama a "racist," Beck amped up his attacks on Jones. But instead of pointing out the potential motive behind Beck's relentless assault, the media merely credited Beck for keeping the Jones story alive. Now that Beck has shifted his sights to other Obama "czars," the media have dutifully followed, increasing their coverage of FCC chief diversity officer Mark Lloyd and Cass Sunstein, who was confirmed to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Beck has also repeatedly promoted allegations -- originally made on Beck favorite Andrew Breitbart's BigHollywood.com -- that the National Endowment for the Arts and its former spokesman Yosi Sergant were "creating a propaganda machine for the president of the United States." Once again, the media were right behind Beck. On the September 22 edition of his CNN program, Lou Dobbs advanced attacks on the White House, stating that there are "[n]ew concerns tonight that the Obama administration may be politicizing the arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, encouraging groups to produce art work promoting the president's agenda." George Will wrote in his September 17 Washington Post column that the controversy shows "the Obama administration's incontinent lust to politicize everything." The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and ABC News? Each covered the White House's issuing of new guidelines that, as The New York Times wrote, "instructed government agencies to keep politics away from the awarding of federal grants."

Beck's been busy. In addition to making plans to hijack the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, September 22 brought us the release of Beck's second book of 2009, the ironically titled Arguing with Idiots. In it, Beck is engaged in an ongoing argument with "the idiot," who comes armed with some truly idiotic statements, such as, "They may not be perfect, but France is doing socialism right -- we should be more like them," and, "Private schools aren't beholden to unions, but they should be closed because they're only for the rich." Beck fearlessly tears down these strawmen throughout the 300-page book.

Beck attacks "Nanny State-ism" by criticizing drunken-driving laws, writing, "The Nanny State approach is to use the police department to set up roadblocks and spot-checks," and stating that since "[t]he largest percentage of vehicular deaths related to alcohol are from repeat offenders," the "commonsense solution is that you lose your license after a second DUI. Forever. Problem solved." Beck never says whether he felt the same way when he was reportedly arrested for "speeding in his DeLorean with one of the car's gull-wing doors wide open," after which a former colleague said Beck was "completely out of it."

Beck's book has also raised the question of whether Beck supports the slave trade. While purporting to explain to an "idiot" the Founding Fathers' true intentions, Beck praises an obsolete provision of the U.S. Constitution that prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 and capped taxes on the slave trade at $10 per slave. In explaining the provision, Beck doesn't mention slavery, saying instead that the provision means that the Founders apparently "felt like there was a value to being able to live here" and lamenting: "Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws." Umm ...

If one were yearning for some good ol' fashioned racial stereotyping, Beck doesn't disappoint! His attack on the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States," comes complete with illustrations of a man and baby wearing sombreros. Yes, his book has illustrations. In fact, the entire book is designed to look as though it were printed on antiqued, dog-eared paper. You know, like the Constitution.

Beck also subtitled a section of his book "The chapter Americans just won't write," which is little more than 18 pages of Mexico-bashing lined with text insets that parody NBC's "The More You Know" public service announcements. In these insets, the familiar shooting star of the NBC graphic has been replaced with a cartoon sombrero, and the slogan "The More You Know" has been changed to "The Less You Know." The chapter features cartoonish Mexicans wearing sombreros and absurdly thick mustaches, and a cartoon of a Chinese takeout container that's meant to represent -- you guessed it -- Chinese immigrants.

In his chapter titled "U.S. Presidents: A Steady Progression of Progressives," Beck treats us to his list of the "Top Ten Bastards of All Time." The occupants of that list, in ascending order, are Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Teddy Roosevelt, Bernie Madoff, Adolf Hitler, Keith Olbermann, Pontius Pilate, FDR, Tiger Woods, and Woodrow Wilson. That's right, in Beck's book, mass slaughter of millions of innocents makes you a less reprehensible person than the presidents who won both World Wars for the United States.

Because with Beck, regardless of their actual ideology, these people are all progressive, with the exception of Tiger Woods, who appeared to make the list because he has "a Swedish-supermodel wife, a gazillion dollars, and ... plays golf for a living ... bastard!" In Beck's world, any progressive is an enemy, and any enemy is progressive.

Beck's conspiracy-addled mind treated us this week to hysterical rantings about how Obama, the SEIU, ACORN, the Tides Foundation, and other unnamed unions will "set wage[s]" in this country by dictating "maximum wage" to redistribute wealth. Beck viewed a video of schoolchildren "singing a song for Barack Obama" as an "indoctrination" linked to Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, the NEA, the Tides Foundation, and Jones. If one were to tune into Beck's television show, one would likely find Beck furiously scribbling on a chalkboard, desperately trying to illustrate the elaborate progressive conspiracy to overthrow the republic. On September 22, Beck laughably denied being a "conspiracy theorist" to CBS News' Katie Couric, but the next day, he admitted his conspiracy theories sometimes make him "feel like Russell Crowe from A Beautiful Mind."

No one should be surprised by Beck's behavior. As Salon's Alexander Zaitchik reported, "In his 2003 book, 'Real America,' Beck refers to himself as a borderline schizophrenic." Zaitchik also documented Beck's rise as a broadcaster, which was marked by cruel attacks and "racial hang-ups." According to Zaitchik, after a rival radio host's wife had a miscarriage, " 'Beck called her live on the air and says, "We hear you had a miscarriage," remembers Brad Miller, a former Y95 DJ and Clear Channel programmer. 'When Terry [Kelly, wife of Beck's rival] said, "Yes," Beck proceeded to joke about how Bruce [Kelly, the rival DJ] apparently can't do anything right -- about he can't even have a baby.' " Racial hang ups? Vicious personal assaults? Over-the-top childishness? Sounds familiar.

Media Matters: Fox News' incomplete, misleading ACORN coverage is just nuts

Karl Frisch — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:13:38 EST

If you get your news from right-wing talk radio and Fox News, you probably think America is being overrun by a hyper-corrupt organized prostitution ring headquartered in the White House.

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.

Media Matters: The tea party teapot tempest rages on

Simon Maloy — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:20:44 EST

It's fitting that a week that began with conservatives warning about the president indoctrinating schoolchildren would end with those same conservatives acting like schoolchildren in the face of perceived indoctrination. Leading up to President Obama's September 8 back-to-school address to our nation's students, the conservative media loudly voiced their opposition to the speech, insisting that the president was recruiting children to his political goals and conscripting them into his civilian army. Of course, when none of that happened and Obama delivered the speech he intended to deliver, conservatives still managed to declare victory, claiming -- with an admitted lack of evidence and an implied lack of sense -- that the White House had secretly changed the speech in response to their heroic exposé of Obama's attempt to corrupt the minds of the youth.

But conservatives wouldn't have to wait long for some genuine "indoctrination," as the president took to the dais of the House of Representatives on September 9 to restate the case for health care reform. And they reacted in true playground fashion. "You lie," screamed Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) in the middle of Obama's address, much to the shock and chagrin of the assembled legislature. While Wilson's Republican colleagues upbraided him in public and private and Wilson himself apologized, the conservative media got busy enshrining a new hero. Rush Limbaugh "was ecstatic when he heard" Wilson's shout and wished he hadn't apologized. "Joe Wilson simply articulated what millions of Americans were saying," said Limbaugh. Hot Air blogger Allahpundit responded by calling the president a "jackass." Obama wasn't the only "jackass" of the evening, as Red State's Erick Erickson, in the midst of lauding Wilson "a great American hero," called Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) a "jackass" for "clap[ing] when Barack Obama bashed Sarah Palin over the death panels."

Slightly less maddening than the sophomoric reaction from the right was the phony equivalence put forth by media outlets seeking to downplay Wilson's outburst. Fox & Friends doggedly tried to convince their viewers that Nancy Pelosi's criticisms of the CIA were no different from Wilson's heckling of the president on the House floor. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank balanced Wilson's verbal attack on the president with Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), who "insisted on making a victory sign with his hand and waving it at Obama." It's a wonder Milbank didn't lump in all those boorish members of Congress who kept banging the palms of their hands together at various times throughout the speech.

And let's not forget that Wilson was wrong. Very wrong. Demonstrably wrong. And yet, that simple fact seemed conspicuously absent from much of the reporting on Wilson's outburst. Viewed through a broader lens, Wilson's two-word interjection during the president's address to Congress is a distillation of the right's approach to the health care debate thus far - short on substance, but long on spectacle. You saw the same scenario play out all last month as town hall after town hall was disrupted by loud protesters shouting about "socialism" and making nonsensical demands that the government keep its hands off Medicare. Their views were fringe, and they were often in direct contradiction to the facts, but the video of angry town hall protesters dominated the cable news channels because they made great TV.

It's a symptom of a broken media culture that a small group of fringe conservatives can scream insults and falsehoods at the president or their representatives in Congress, bring no facts to bear in support of their allegations, and still be treated as major players in a policy debate.

Media Matters: Storming Camelot: Sen. Kennedy's death brings out worst from the right

Karl Frisch — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:34:32 EST

Following Wednesday's early-morning news that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy had lost his battle with brain cancer, Media Matters posted the following statement from president Eric Burns at 3:51 a.m. ET on the County Fair blog:

"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.

Media Matters: Press should take finger off button in "nuclear option" health care coverage

Karl Frisch — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:11:55 EST

Media conservatives aren't content to merely misinform regarding the content of progressive health insurance reform legislation. They want to misinform about the legislative process used to pass that legislation, too. Just think of it: Death panels passed using a nuclear option. What American could support that?

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.

Media Matters: Please give a warm welcome to our death panelists

John V. Santore — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:41:52 EST

The role of rationality in our republic was again called into question this week, as the newest conservative lines of attack against health care reform embraced an equally new level of madness.

As you surely know by now, Sarah Palin loves Facebook, and last Friday, she wanted to make sure her friends knew the terrible secret hiding in H.R. 3200.

"The America I know and love," she wrote, "is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of [President] Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

The idea that government bureaucrats will soon create "death panels" that will encourage the killing of Americans with disabilities as well as the elderly has now officially entered the conservative media's playbook. The notion is apparently rooted in an extremely selective reading of past writings by Ezekiel Emanuel, coupled with a total misreading of Section 1233 of the House health care legislation, which aims only to reimburse doctors who provide voluntary end-of-life counseling for those on Medicare.

As usual, media conservatives didn't let the facts get in the way of fear. Glenn Beck defended Palin's "death panel" statement on Monday, as did Fox News' Andrew Napolitano. That same day, Rush Limbaugh cited an op-ed that, while raising concerns about the end-of-life consultations, called euthanasia talk "rubbish." Then he ignored that statement and proceeded to talk about euthanasia.

The narratives continued unabated and were repeatedly given attention by Fox's Brian Kilmeade. (Fox & Friends, it turns out, is a bad place to go for accurate analysis of health care reform.) Beck dismissed the unconvinced, warning that they would "laugh all the way to the death panels," and Ann Coulter said that Emanuel was on her "death list." Beck and Limbaugh also revisited the Nazi theme of the previous week, equating the principles and tactics of the Third Reich to those being employed by congressional Democrats and the media. When the Senate Finance Committee indicated that the end-of-life counseling provision would be removed from its version of the legislation, The Fox Nation impartially reported the news by declaring victory.

By the way, in case you had any doubt about how hard the conservative media are working to defeat health care reform (and I know you did), just take a look at this study Media Matters for America conducted. Over a two-day period (August 10 and 11), we tallied up the guests on Fox News who discussed health care. The result: 10 supported progressive reforms, and 63 opposed them. As always, fair and balanced.

So what's the good news?

Despite it all, there was actually a host of accurate coverage concerning health care reform this week -- a reminder of just how shockingly irresponsible most conservative media outlets are. ABC's Kate Snow dismissed the end-of-life controversy as misinformation started by Betsy McCaughey, and Joe Scarborough put the smear out to pasture as well. The "death panel" assertion was further debunked by CNN's John Roberts, MSNBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman, David Shuster, and Willie Geist, NBC's Anne Thompson, and ABC's chief medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson.

CBS and NBC also ran stories illustrating the urgent need for health care reform, and CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta addressed the right-wing "rationing" canard, explaining how rationing occurs all the time under our current system. There was even pushback against the claim that Democrats were advocating a "Canadian-style" system.

Sadly, there was also some backsliding. USA Today falsely claimed that the "estimated cost of a health care overhaul" would be $1 trillion, and one CNN report cited Heritage Foundation research while ignoring estimates from the CBO. Most telling was an ABC piece that contradicted the network's own reporting and portrayed the end-of-life issue as still being an open question. It was a classic example of the mainstream media's desire to avoid criticism by presenting both sides of a story -- even when one side doesn't make any sense. Let's hope this Sunday's Meet the Press won't follow suit (David Gregory has promised it won't).

Don't show me the money!

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 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.

Anti-democratic Democrats continue hosting public forums

Town hall protests continued this week, all of which were given extensive coverage by Fox News and other conservative outlets (respectful meetings were ignored). Andrew Breitbart attempted to blame any past or future violence on Democrats and their thuggish union allies, while Fox's Megyn Kelly allowed protester Mike Sola to claim that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer had sent goons to his house to intimidate his family. No, there simply aren't any provocations coming from the right these days. "[W]e need to be very, very careful," Beck warned his audience while appealing for calm. "Somebody's going to do something stupid, and it will change the republic overnight." Nor does Lou Dobbs want anyone to misinterpret his assessment of Howard Dean ("[H]e's a bloodsucking leftist -- I mean, you gotta put a stake through his heart to stop this guy"). When a guest criticized him for calling Dean a "bloodsucking liberal," Dobbs defended himself. "I called him a bloodsucking leftist," he repeated. And just for good measure, Beck and Bill O'Reilly derided an 11-year-old girl's question at Obama's town hall in New Hampshire. Just a normal day at the right-wing office.

Conservatives, seeking to exploit the town halls to full effect, also aimed to portray Democrats as being anti-democratic. In a Monday op-ed, Pelosi and Hoyer made a simple declaration: "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American." It seemed clear enough -- if you attend a town hall, you shouldn't shout people down. But that's not how the right -- as well as the mainstream media -- spun it. The line was twisted, and both representatives were attacked for calling the protesters "un-American." Dobbs chastised their "hypocrisy." Kilmeade repeated the distortion, as did Politico and Fox's Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy. Even NBC's Chuck Todd and NPR's Diane Rehm got into the mix. Sean Hannity, of course, wasn't to be topped, saying that "we've had hardworking Americans called Nazis and brownshirts and un-American by Nancy Pelosi." It seemed as though the CNN's Errol Louis and MSNBC's Contessa Brewer were the only ones who took the time to read the editorial before commenting on it.

Barack Obama is just like Richard Nixon

How, you ask? Why, they both have enemies lists, of course! That's how Beck and Dobbs described the White House's request that supporters pass along emails containing erroneous smears about health care reform. Indeed, Rush nailed the administration's true intent: It's a "snitch website" he declared. It's Obama's "own exclusive, private domestic spying program" -- forget that whole FISA thing. In order to ensure the program's secrecy, the president chose to publicly address the attack during a town hall meeting. Then he asked for everyone's Social Security number and something embarrassing he could blackmail them with.

Down the rabbit hole

At a few points this week, words were exchanged that simply don't fit the rubric of normal conservative misinformation. Specifically: Michael Savage again warned the public of the "internment camps" that Obama is now readying for his political opponents; Hannity derided the "sick, psychotic, twisted individuals in their underwear in a basement" who monitor Fox and right-wing talk radio (he means us!); Limbaugh once again dismissed a report on the growing threat of right-wing militia violence (because there were no consequences the last time that was done); and Beck explained that health care was not a God-given right for all Americans -- not unless Jesus himself is conducting the physicals.

But in the end, it was Beck who truly broke new ground when he said something that was so crazy that even his panel of yes-men were left speechless. He's really hitting his stride.

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert asks why the media don't care when conservatives cry "Nazi" (only when liberals do), and Jamison Foser reminds us that facts matter.

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).

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 John V. Santore, an associate at Media Matters.

Media Matters: A long, hot summer of hate

John V. Santore — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:22 EST

It was an ugly week, and a telling one.

"Global warming is no different than health care, is no different than cap and trade," Rush Limbaugh explained on Monday. "It is simply another branch of liberalism, statism, that is designed to expand government control over individuals and their liberty and their freedom and their income."

"And if this plays out right ... you can do some great damage, culturally, to liberalism," he concluded.

The next five days showed how seriously the right wing is taking those words and how far it is willing to go to confuse and manipulate the public, and to capitalize on the ensuing fear and rage. The goals: the complete delegitimization of Obama and the wholesale destruction of the progressive movement he leads.

Glenn Beck is anti-violence, pro-poison

On Monday, Glenn Beck made clear that he does not support violence in the name of political causes. Sure, he's advocating civil disobedience if need be. Maybe 70 million people voted for Barack Obama less than a year ago, but who cares? "It is time to go to Washington!" he preached on Wednesday. "It is time to stand or sit in the middle of the street if you have to!" But remember: no violence.

Then on Thursday, he poisoned the speaker of the House. Not literally, of course -- just in effigy. On live television. What's the problem? Can't you liberals take a joke?

It was a perfect example of the game conservatives in the media are playing: pouring gasoline on the fire, and then, once they are criticized, saying that they were only kidding. But what does Beck expect his viewers to take away from his broadcasts? After a week of increasingly violent protests at town halls around the country, including one such event at which protesters reportedly mentioned Beck by name when explaining what inspired them, he cannot seriously contend that his rhetoric isn't having an impact, isn't stirring up the rage and confusion that is defining opposition to Democratic reforms. How many times can Beck portray Obama as a traitor who is destroying our national sovereignty, or compare the president's health care proposals to those of the Nazis, before the anger spills over? He calls for calm, and then describes the Obama-led "brownshirts" who are silencing dissent and the "enemies list" the White House is compiling of those who dare to voice their opinions. Meanwhile, it is the Democrats, we are told, who are the irresponsible ones. It is Democrats who are using the language of "pure hate," as Frank Luntz told Beck, to describe the brave patriots who are shouting down members of Congress in defense of liberty. Why are they doing it? Beck's answer? They want to create "more problems" so "they can use the iron fist and crush people." In the meantime, Beck urged his supporters to continue pressuring their members of Congress, even if they have to "hold a meeting ... in front of their house."

There was a hint of accountability this week after several of Beck's advertisers canceled their contracts with his show in the wake of his accusation that Obama hates white people. But the provocation continued. "When will someone stand up and say, "Traitor'?" Beck ranted on August 5. "When will someone stand up and say, 'Thieves'? ... The American way of life is being systematically dismantled and destroyed! The republic is in danger!"

Beck is right. If he gets his way, it is in danger. Reason will have been replaced by rage.

With Obama in office, Lou Dobbs claims to be an independent no more

Lou Dobbs took aim at everyone this week -- and CNN still has his back.

In spite of fresh criticism from sources as diverse as the NAACP and Don Imus, CNN alone among the major cable channels decided that it would refuse to run the ad Media Matters put out calling for the network to address Dobbs' promotion of the "birther" conspiracy theory. Predictably, Dobbs tried to make the entire issue about Media Matters itself, saying the ad "really reveals a lot about" who we are. He continued the theme throughout the week, portraying Media Matters as one of the White House's "attack dogs" and asking Obama to call us off, something Ann Coulter agreed with when she was a guest on his radio show.

It was actually a banner week for Lou. In fact, he officially abandoned his stance as "Mr. Independent," using his radio show to inform Obama (a regular listener, to be sure) that he was "moving from being an independent, sir, to being absolutely opposed to ... any policy you can conceive of!" Dobbs celebrated his newfound opposition by spreading misinformation on health care reform (it's socialism, by the way, because Obama's a socialist), hosting a Michelle Malkin lovefest, defending Limbaugh, raising the specter of incipient fascism, and repeatedly attacking Keith Olbermann, whom he described as a "cretin" and a "psycho" who was "psychologically scarred" from beatings by "girls" that he supposedly suffered as a child. No wonder, then, that Olbermann works at MSNBC, the network Dobbs called a "coven of thugs."

And not to be left behind by his fellow right-wing media celebrities, Dobbs offered support to a caller who threatened to "brawl" with health care reform advocates at a town hall, encouraging others like him to make their "voice heard."

But whatever you do, don't say "birther" on his show.

Rush Limbaugh hates Nazis, which is why he hates Nancy Pelosi

It's hard to imagine, but in certain ways, Rush was actually the most reasonable of the conservative heavy hitters this week ... except for his repeated comparisons of the Democratic leadership to the Nazi high command. Whoops -- never mind.

With the precision the right-wing echo chamber provides on a daily basis, Rush reiterated his heartfelt belief that if Democrats have their way, senior citizens -- the very same group that benefits exclusively from that evil government-run program known as Medicare -- will spend their last days on a "Statist Farm," where they will be unable to see a doctor and suffer at the hands of heartless bureaucrats whose job it will be to "make sure certain people die." On the other hand, if you were a loyal Obama supporter, you know, like an HIV patient, you might get special treatment. Limbaugh also mocked the voice of Kathleen Sebelius (he sure hates it when women talk) and described her work promoting reform as a "campaign of pure fraud and deceit." And he had a warning for some of the crooks in D.C.: "You Blue Dogs are about to see your last days if you vote for this bill." At least he's giving them one more chance to get it right.

Predictably, Limbaugh decried the idea that anti-reform town hall protests were anything other than the work of self-informed citizens. "It's not ginned up, it's genuine. It's real," he explained. Sure, there isn't a single shard of evidence that any well-funded conservative organization has spent a single second spreading lies and advocating aggressive tactics in the hope of furthering the disruptions.

"There is no manufactured anger," Limbaugh said the next day. "The anger is legitimate and real and it is boiling over."

There's that idea again: The anger is boiling over.

In order to truly manipulate people, you need to convince them that they are fighting pure evil. And on Thursday, Rush finally got down to business.

"[T]he Obama health care logo is damn close to a Nazi swastika logo," he said on air. He went on to explain "the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany." Key among them: "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." On Friday, he did it again, but blamed Nancy Pelosi for "starting it" because she had pointed out that one conservative protester had made a sign featuring a swastika. There was plenty of photographic evidence to back her up, but Limbaugh still called her "deranged."

Sounding the same call as Beck and Dobbs, Limbaugh explained that Obama's "brownshirts" were coming, sure to make use of the "snitch website" he had set up. He warned of "union thugs" who had "roughed up" a protester -- "Mussolini-type stuff." He accused a St. Louis SEIU local of violence, and then gave out the office's address.

He even latched onto a recent fad in conservative circles: comparing Obama to the Joker, the sociopathic anarchist from the most recent Batman movie. "His goal was to undermine the whole system," Limbaugh said of the character, while actually explaining himself.

He wasn't kidding. The conservative playbook has been laid bare, and it is ugly. In the face of this summer of hate, progressives must persevere. And in so doing, they must be driven not by anger at the thought of who they are fighting against, but by devotion to who they are fighting for: everyone the conservative movement is so content to leave behind.

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters Senior Fellows: Eric Boehlert asks The New Yorker to clean its monocle after it toasted Michael Savage, and Jamison Foser has a must-read column on how the media should bring some clarity to the health care debate.

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).

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by John V. Santore, an associate at Media Matters.

Media Matters: Meet Jon Klein, Lou Dobbs' apologist-in-chief

Brian Frederick — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:45:34 EST

If it wasn't already dead, media accountability died this week.

While last week was about Lou Dobbs' ridiculous refusal to relent on his promotion of conspiracy theories about President Obama's birth certificate, this week was about CNN President Jon Klein's ridiculous refusal to salvage his network's credibility by reining in Dobbs. As Dobbs continues to destroy his career and drag down CNN with him, Klein has shamelessly tried to downplay Dobbs' behavior and falsely suggest Dobbs is only reporting on the "phenomenon" of those who question Obama's citizenship.

In fact, Dobbs has said he has questions about Obama's birth certificate. That makes him part of the very "phenomenon" that Klein claims is the subject of Dobbs' "reporting."

Further, Klein absurdly told TV reporters on Tuesday that what Dobbs says on his radio show is "separate and apart" from what he says on CNN. As though Dobbs hasn't questioned Obama's birth certificate on CNN. And never mind that Dobbs promotes his radio show on CNN and vice versa, and that Dobbs' CNN colleagues regularly appear on his radio show.

Indeed, Klein's claim that what Dobbs "turns around and does on his radio show is not within our purview" is laughable.

Klein wants you to believe he can't control what Dobbs says on his radio show. Really, it seems Klein either can't -- or chooses not to -- control Dobbs.

Bernie Goldberg paid Klein -- whom Goldberg said he "know[s] very well" -- no favors when he spoke candidly about Klein's motivations: "If Lou Dobbs talked about this every day of the week and ratings went up, Jon wouldn't have a problem with that."

While Dobbs' ratings were already on the decline even before he waded into the birther business, they have reportedly dropped by 15 percent in the last two weeks and 27 percent in the 25-54 demographic.

(Dobbs has no doubt also driven away viewers with his fearmongering on two other obsessions of his -- immigration and gun control. Two Media Matters for America reports this week found that Dobbs was way out of sync with the rest of the network in covering these issues.)

So the question is no longer how long will Dobbs continue to clutch his birth certificate baby. Thanks to his own ego and his penchant for playing the victim of what he calls the "left-wing media conspiracy," it appears he will insist on talking about it every day until he is removed or forced to adhere to some sort of journalistic standard.

And the question is no longer how long will CNN's president allow Dobbs to mainstream racist and fringe conspiracy theories about the president of the United States. Klein has become Dobbs' chief apologist, and his fate is now married to Dobbs'.

The real question now is: What will Turner Broadcasting System's board do about its Lou Dobbs problem (and its subsequent Jon Klein problem)?

(You can sign the petition here demanding that CNN take action.)

Dobbs kills the birther movement

As Media Matters senior fellow Eric Boehlert astutely pointed out this week, one of the consequences of Dobbs' belaboring of the birth certificate nonsense was that the birther movement is now "officially kaput (like stick-a-fork-in-it-done)."

The media's response to Dobbs (and the infamous woman from a Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) town hall event who wants her country back) was swift and overwhelming. Shock and awe. From conservatives and progressives alike.

This past week, even more media figures distanced themselves from Dobbs.

Fox News' Chris Wallace said Dobbs is looking like a "grassy knoll nut" and asked if CNN would air flat-earth theories.

Bill O'Reilly said Dobbs was pushing a "patently absurd" story.

And in a shock to even the most casual observer, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Dobbs was "wrong on this issue." Coulter went on to explain that "every conservative publication from, you know, Human Events, the Sweetness & Light blog, American Spectator, dealt with this because it was raised as an issue and said, 'There's nothing to it.' "

It's not crazy enough for Ann Coulter or Human Events -- just CNN's prime-time programming.

Battle of the race-baiters: Beck vs. Limbaugh

Race-baiting opportunists Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck seized on the controversy surrounding the arrest of Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. to claim that it is Obama who has a problem with race.

Beck told the Fox & Friends crew on Tuesday:

This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture -- I don't know what it is.

Seconds later, however, Beck said:

I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem.

And Beck's coup de grace:

This guy is, I believe, a racist.

Surely, such a ridiculously absurd and offensive statement would not be tolerated on any respectable news network. Surely Fox News hasn't mainstreamed so much lunacy (thanks in large part to Beck) that they are OK with one of their anchors calling the first African-American president -- who was raised by a white mother and white grandparents -- a "racist" and asserting he has a "deep-seated hatred for white people"? Right?

Well, Fox News senior vice president of programming Bill Shine put out the following statement later that day:

During Fox & Friends this morning, Glenn Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions.

Oy. Another network head shamelessly tries to claim that his anchor's rhetoric is not reflective of the network itself.

At least some in the media called out Beck for his comments.

NBC News posted on its First Read blog Wednesday:

What's most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn't a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses. There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs. But not anymore; if anything, it's now encouraged.

MSNBC's Donny Deutsch took a more pragmatic approach, listing Beck's advertisers and encouraging viewers to write to those sponsors and demand that they pull advertising money from Beck's show.

Even The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck -- who often regurgitates conservative talking points from Fox News -- said there was "danger" in Beck's rhetoric. "Whenever you throw that word out at somebody, you better be able to back it up, and he's not able to," she said on Friday. (Flashback: Beck gets PWND by the View co-hosts and is forced to admit he "mischaracterized" a story about co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters.)

CNN contributor Roland Martin called Beck "the P.T. Barnum of television."

And Stephen Colbert summed it up thusly: "Beck likes arguing but has a deep-seated hatred for logic."

Although Beck may have stolen most of the headlines this week for his "racist" comment, Limbaugh's comments this week about Obama's response to the Gates controversy were merely the latest examples of his longstanding reliance on race-baiting.

In addition to calling Gates "an angry racist" and suggesting Obama is an "Oreo" and a "thug," Limbaugh claimed "white policemen are under assault."

Of the "beer summit" between Gates, Obama and Sgt. James Crowley, Limbaugh said it happened because "two guys with an attitude jumped all over a cop."

And in the most ridiculous and tortured analogy of the week, Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Obama as "Barack Nifong," a reference to the district attorney in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Don't bother to try to figure it out.

As Chris Matthews observed, Limbaugh and Beck are in "competition" to "see who can be the more virulent" in attacking Obama on race.

We're all gonna die!

If you are old, you will be killed under the Democrats' health care plan.

Well, the conservative mythmakers might as well just come out and say that. Their fearmongering is only slightly more veiled.

Following serial health care misinformer Betsy McCaughey's false claim a couple of weeks ago that the House health care reform bill will "absolutely require" end-of-life counseling for seniors "that will tell them how to end their life sooner," conservative media figures have pushed various versions of this claim.

Not surprisingly, Limbaugh has been one of the loudest voices on this one:

People out of a certain age, with certain diseases, will be deemed not worth the investment and they will just -- as Obama said, they'd give them some pain pills and let them loop out till they die, and they don't even know it's happened. It will be rationed -- it's -- you're not gonna be able to choose your doctor, probably after a while will not be able to hold on to your private insurance or your current insurance, which is all by design. But they're gonna be able to regulate -- you know, they call you a risk based on, do you smoke, do you not smoke, how far do you drive to work, do you wear polyester -- it's more flammable -- I mean, it could get ridiculous.

Laura Ingraham also spent the week repeatedly referring to "hospice chutes" where the elderly will end up if they're not careful:

I'm telling you, if you're over the age of 65 and you have so much as a backache, I would keep it to yourself. All right? Keep the backache to yourself. If you've slept wrong on your neck, and, "Oh! I have a crick in my neck!" OK? Forget about it. Because you are about three steps away from the hospice chute. They're going to push you down that chute. If they can save a buck and then channel the money toward -- what? -- bailing out Planned Parenthood, they'll do that.

In fact, advance care planning is not mandatory in the House health care bill. The bill provides coverage for such counseling as a service through Medicare, and it is not required.

It shouldn't come as a shock that the conservative media overlook the facts in their rush to scare people from supporting health care reform. But enough with the Soylent Green references already.

This week's media columns

Eric Boehlert explains how, in one fell swoop, Lou Dobbs tarnished CNN's credibility, killed the birther movement, and scared Rush Limbaugh off reporting birth certificate conspiracy theories. Jamison Foser explains Howard Kurtz's giant conflict of interest in light of his (lack of) coverage of the Dobbs/Klein story.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Brian Frederick, deputy editorial director at Media Matters for America. He holds a Ph.D. in Communication from the University of Colorado.

Media Matters for America - Weekly wrap-up

Media Matters: The Palin chronicles

Other major stories this week

Media Matters: Dobbs, dropped

Other major stories this week

Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good

Media Matters: Fox News isn't news -- this is news?

Beck's little red book of smears

Other notable quotes this week:

This week's media columns

Media Matters: Limbaugh's NFL dream slips through his "formerly nicotine-stained fingers"

Other major stories this week

Media Matters: Right again makes an anti-American ass of itself following Obama's Nobel win

Other Major Stories This Week

Media Matters: Right-wing media lynch mob gay-baits White House, facts be damned

Other major stories this week

Media Matters: Move over, Drudge, there's a new sheriff in town

Other major stories this week

Media Matters: Fox News' incomplete, misleading ACORN coverage is just nuts

Media Matters: The tea party teapot tempest rages on

Other major stories this week

Media Matters: Storming Camelot: Sen. Kennedy's death brings out worst from the right

Other major stories this week

Media Matters: Press should take finger off button in "nuclear option" health care coverage

Other major stories this week

Media Matters: Please give a warm welcome to our death panelists

Media Matters: A long, hot summer of hate

Media Matters: Meet Jon Klein, Lou Dobbs' apologist-in-chief