Showing posts with label Media Matters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Matters. Show all posts

Thursday, March 4, 2010

I grew up reading The Washington Post

And I grew up listening to my father rant, while religiously reading the thing, that the Post was just another liberal rag, on par with the holiest of holies, The New York Times.

Well, apparently nothing lasts for ever--if it ever happened in the first place. Like most candy-colored "things that used to be so great" nostalgia--you know, when America was America for Americans, capitalism was "free" and government was "small"--that never were (not the way people that use them mean them), this never existed.



Anyway, now they've run afoul of the rightist-watching Media Matters:

"The Washington Post just hired Marc Thiessen, who now becomes the second former George W. Bush speechwriter-turned-columnist at the paper. Thiessen isn't just any right-wing shill: He's an unapologetic advocate for torture. And he isn't alone. Charles Krauthammer, Michael Scheuer, and Richard Cohen have all used the editorial pages of the Post to defend torture.

"In his book and even on the pages of the Post, Thiessen has repeatedly made dishonest and dubious statements in support of torture. For example:
  1. He falsely claimed in his most recent book that, since CIA interrogation of terror suspects began after 9-11, there were no attacks by Al Qaeda on U.S. interests at home or abroad.
  2. He also claimed, falsely, in a Post op-ed that Bush oversaw "2,688 days without a terrorist attack on [American] soil," ignoring the anthrax mail attacks, the El Al shooting in Los Angeles and other domestic terrorist attacks.
  3. In a Post op-ed, he called President Obama's decision to release Bush administration torture memos "irresponsible" and claimed that "Americans may die as a result.""

Sunday, January 17, 2010

I say we put Pat Robertson and Rush in boat going to Haiti.


Could argue that to understand the want of relative deprivation necessitates the acknowledgement, acceptance of relative
privilege.



"Pat Robertson told his audience in the wake of the earthquake the "true story" that Haiti "swore a pact to the devil" to get "free from the French" and "ever since, they have been cursed." You heard that right. According to Robertson, the Haitian people are cursed and were hit by this horrible disaster because they made a pact with the devil for their freedom." - Media Matters

Kind of makes the Xmas day "underwear bomber" not seem so terror-fying. If there is a god, to quote a friend, "what an asshole."

UN guy: "Exactly what Haiti doesn't need, after all it's been through."

The really fucked-up thing is this might be the only thing that might make the city better. The chance to rebuild seemingly more significant than New Orleans, after Katrina. There will be more resources pouring into the place than ever have, or would, before now. The hurricanes, weather-related or political, of Haiti haven't brought out such an apparently immense response. This seemingly could be on par with a full scale invasion. If the government, only hanging on by a thread before the quake, is undone, the US/UN will have to take over. Martial law could be instated, suspending the country's constitution. This could be parlayed into calls for a constitutional convention of some sort that would be a proxy for installing an even more international friendly government, with US/UN troops remaining for some time.

Nation building anyone? We're doing a bang up job in Iraq and Afghanistan (that's only half sarcasm, and half hope). Though, to my knowledge there's no insurgency in Haiti--yet. And like Katrina, there's a mass exodus of the, presumably, poorer residents of the city.

Some semblance of normalcy, says Clinton. But maybe their normal shouldn't be returned to them, why not make it better?

IMF dude seems to agree, he says "something totally new...at the national level" is needed and the "piece meal approach...is not enough to get rid of the problems of the country."

Last time US troops in Haiti on this scale?

Don't quite get the bodies in the road to protest a slow response, almost ironic.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

I will not talk about health care, I will not talk about health care, I will not...

The quotes below are from Media Matters, (yes, again) about the energy/cap-and-trade bill that passed a little while back. And though I’ve become aware that the main guy there at MM is of a somewhat dubious character, I still trust the quotes—I mean, if it’s easy enough to verify, why would they lie? That’s why I’ve like: though it’s no secret what side they’re on, they usually let the media’s stupidity speak for itself.

On Fox News, actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein described the president's plan as "the nerdy kids in high school who didn't have cars or had to take the bus to school or mothers had to drive them to school, they're taking revenge on the cool kids who had the cool cars."






Wait, Ben Stein? Isn’t he the branded-stereotype nerd of them all, since like the 80’s and Ferris Buhler’s Day Off? You know: Bueller, Bueller… Bueller?









Over on the Fox Business Network, Neil Cavuto likened the administration's plan to a fictional mob boss, saying, "It is not the American way, but it may be the Tony Soprano way."



Funny, I thought the Sopranos was based in New Jersey—god, if that’s Sicily, it has really let itself go. Kidding, I love Jersey. And though some might not like to be reminded of it, we can’t say that Tony Soprano isn’t as American as certain flavors of pies or sports games. Besides, what other country would a Don go to a shrink? Okay, perhaps Germany.

But, really, this is just another example of the American Dilemma—as in, there is no dilemma when there should be. We like to be proud of certain behavior and claim it as American, but we don’t own up to the stuff we deem bad; this goes for domestic and foreign policy. Bullshit, it’s all American. No, criminal enterprise is not uniquely American, but our brand is. One that is quite comfortable in the political and business worlds, among other things. Contradiction is okay; we can be good and bad, and not become schizophrenic.

Here’s another.

But it was MSNBC's Mike Barnicle who best illustrated what's wrong with the overwhelming majority of current economic punditry. On Wednesday, he asked his Morning Joe co-hosts incredulously, "What are they doing with the [stimulus] money?" Then on Thursday, he reflected on the detrimental nature of America's "amazingly impatient culture" where people can't stop asking, "Where's the money?" Simply put, this kind of schizophrenic analysis is still overwhelming logical thought, much to the detriment of the viewing public.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Stupid, stupid conservatives.


I was raised on the supposed stupidity of liberals and the glory of the conservative movement, born in the 70’s and a child of the 80’s. But as I age so does the conviction that, although there might have been some truth to that reality (while Clinton didn’t help, the sex-capades-impeachment was a early warning signal of the neo-con-absurdity to come), it certainly isn’t the case anymore. In fairness to conservatives whom I respect (family members included), this is mostly in regards to the rise and proliferation of the conservative media.

Cases in point:

Fox front man Bill O'Reilly was beside himself over the handshake, indignantly claiming that former President Richard Nixon never met with Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Perhaps O'Reilly would benefit from a refresher in Political History 101, because it's a well-established fact that Nixon met with Mao in 1972, a point Keith Olbermann drove home in naming O'Reilly "Worst Person" on Thursday for his historically challenged comment.

Conservative leader and radio host Rush Limbaugh asserted, "If you look at what we are calling torture, you have to laugh," said that "if somebody can be water-tortured six times a day, then it isn't torture," and claimed that "appeasers" have "water[ed] down" definition of torture like "NOW gang" did with definition of domestic violence.

County Fair, the official Media Matters blog, last week called out the conservative Washington Times for its bizarre, fact-free editorial that claimed President Obama's job approval ratings were "in the basement" and that he was historically unpopular. True Alice-in-Wonderland stuff since recent polling data suggest the exact opposite about the president's popularity. Well, it took a whole week, but the Times finally walked back that nonsense retracting the entire editorial noting, "We hereby retract our April 28 editorial 'Barack's in the basement' because we misapplied several polling comparisons of various presidents after their first 100 days in office." That's being generous when you consider the entire piece was completely made up.

[W]hen Gov. John Baldacci (D) signed a marriage equality law, Maine became the fifth state to allow legal same-sex marriage. On the Christian Broadcasting Network today, Pat Robertson responded by claiming that the “ultimate conclusion” of legalizing same-sex marriage would be the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, child molestation and pedophilia. “You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent,” said Robertson.

Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh Show guest host Mark Steyn criticized the president as an elitist because he ordered a burger with "spicy mustard" or "Dijon mustard." Hannity claimed that Obama ordered a "fancy burger" with a "very special condiment," while Steyn asserted Obama is trying "to enlighten us" through his order. Ingraham asked of Obama: "What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup but Dijon mustard? ... The guy orders a cheeseburger without ketchup? What is that?" In their discussions of Obama's burger order, Hannity, Ingraham, and Steyn all referenced a Grey Poupon commercial featuring actors portraying wealthy British men expressing desire for the mustard.

David Feherty, in an essay for a Dallas magazine wrote, "From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

As Olbermann has explained, the point would not be to watch Hannity suffer. Rather, it would be to prove to him — and perhaps his viewers — that waterboarding is in fact “cruel, inhuman” torture — that it is what an adviser on terrorism to the departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations, and Intelligence called “slow-motion suffocation.”

Indeed, the 2005 torture memo written by Steven Bradbury required the CIA to have a tracheotomy kit on hand to revive a detainee who had effectively drowned:

[A] detainee could suffer spasms of the larynx that would prevent him from breathing even when the application of water is stopped and the detainee is returned to an upright position. In the event of such spasms, a qualified physician would immediately intervene to address the problem, and, if necessary, the intervening physician would perform a tracheotomy. …we are informed that the necessary emergency medical equipment is always present - although not visible to the detainee — during any application of the waterboard.

A footnote to the memo warns, “for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways,” and “aggressive medical intervention” may be required to restore breathing. And yet Hannity continues to insist, “It’s not drowning.”

Indeed, the fact that conservatives and the Task Force in particular feel the need to lie about the history and traditions surrounding the NDP [National Day of Prayer—ew!] suggests that they are less concerned with promoting prayer in America than they are with taking every possible opportunity to “slam Obama” for political gain.

I wish it were true that Obama was in some way—any way—anti-religious, but unfortunately that’s just not the case. In fact, as I suggested about Bobby Jindal’s necessary conversion to an Anglo-religion, so too did Obama need the sanctification and protection of J.C. to win the White House. Half black? Sure. Absentee father? Well, OK. Muslim absentee father? Ummm… Community organizer. What’s that? But (god forbid) had Obama ever waiver in his devotion to some imaginary Father and his ghost-Son—not to be confused with “Ghost-Dad,” the ridiculously horrible Bill Cosby movie—he could have forgotten about the presidency.

Why? Because the equally ridiculously horrible reality in this country, indeed most the world, is that, even as religion slowly ebbs from humanity and even the transgendered get civil rights, atheism remains a pox in our houses.

Monday, March 23, 2009

My ongoing belief that people's words belie the morons they are, without much help from others.


Tucker Carlson about the Stewart/Cramer skirmish:

And by the way, where was Jon Stewart when the bubble was swelling? How many shows did he do on the coming financial collapse? Why didn't he warn us?

Stewart's answer invariably is: I'm a comedian. That's not my job. But that's a dodge, and increasingly unsustainable. In fact, Stewart is a player in the national conversation. He seeks to influence politics and policy, and he succeeds. It's time for him to admit that, and be held to the same standards everyone else at his level (including Jim Cramer) lives by.



Wasn't the whole point Stewart was making was all these folks weren't doing their job, i.e., not up to the "standards everyone...(including Jim Cramer) lives by."


Media Matters take on the situation:

In the Seinfeld episode "The Comeback," George Costanza is embarrassed by his inability to think of a response to a co-worker who made fun of his overconsumption of shrimp cocktail by saying, "Hey George, the ocean called. They're running out of shrimp." George later thinks up what he believes is the ideal comeback, "Well, the Jerk Store called, and they're running out of you," and becomes obsessed with gaining an opportunity to use the line, eventually flying to Ohio in order to do so.

George's long-planned zinger falls flat, however, when the co-worker responds, "What's the difference? You're their all-time best seller." Flustered, and again unable to think of a witty response, George blurts out: "Oh yeah? Well I had sex with your wife!" -- a jibe that blows up in his face when he is told the man's wife is in a coma. The episode ends with George driving home, plotting yet another attempt to win the verbal battle.

Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has been doing his best George Costanza impersonation for the past week, as he lashes out again and again at Jon Stewart, who humiliated Carlson on national television more than four years ago.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

More from the "bogus 'war on the wealthy' storyline."


Excuse the excessive borrowing, but this budget is too important... If you care about reality and stuff. Again, from Media Matters:

The media's tax fraud

by Jamison Foser

Last week, President Obama unveiled a budget outline that extends the Bush tax cuts for all but the top two percent of taxpayers and makes permanent a tax credit of up to $800 for low- and middle-income workers that was included in the recent stimulus package, among other tax cuts.

On the other hand, individual taxpayers with taxable income above $200,000 ($250,000 for families) per year would pay more in taxes under Obama's plan, under which the tax rates paid on income in the top brackets would revert to their levels under President Clinton in the 1990s -- from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent. Slate.com's Daniel Gross estimates that for someone with $350,000 in income, this will amount to about $1,500 a year in increased taxes...

If the expiration, on schedule, of tax cuts that were always scheduled to expire is described as a policy of raising taxes, that makes a mockery of the entire tax policy debate of the past decade. It rigs tax debates in favor of Republicans, who find it easier to argue for tax cuts for the wealthy if they can argue that the cuts won't cost very much -- by making them "temporary" -- but who then get to argue that the scheduled expiration that they included in order to make the cuts look affordable would constitute a tax increase. The GOP gets to have it both ways, describing tax cuts as temporary when it helps them, and pretending they were intended to be permanent when it helps them. It's no great surprise Republicans want to have it both ways -- but that doesn't mean the media should go along.

The actual change the Obama proposal makes to the Bush tax rates is making permanent the cuts for those who make less than $200,000. The proposal doesn't actually increase income tax rates for anyone compared to current law, and it reduces them for the vast majority of taxpayers. Yet the "increase" -- mandated by a law signed by President Bush, and scheduled to occur for nearly a decade -- has gotten all the attention, while the cuts have largely escaped notice from the major media...

You have to wonder how media stars like Blitzer and Gibson have lost touch with their viewers so badly that they think $200,000 incomes are typical.

Charlie Gibson reportedly makes $8 million a year and is paid less than his counterparts at CBS and NBC.

Might that have something to do with his lack of perspective? How could it not?


How could it not, indeed.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Class Matters

The paragraphs below are from one of the regular emails I receive from Media Matters, a great watchdog organization of elite media and the entrenched political and business class interests they usually speak to and for.

Yes, they are left-leaning--unapologetically so. They contend that, despite the view to the contrary of a few overweight and Irish right-wing blowhards and their hater-audiences, the news media is for the most part a mouth piece for conservative values and perspective.

---

"Warren Buffett, who knows a thing or two about wealth, has noted that because of the way the tax code is structured, he effectively pays taxes at a lower rate than the secretaries who work for him, concluding: "There's class warfare, all right. But it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

One reason they're winning is that the news media do not use the loaded phrases "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" to describe things like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, or the home mortgage deduction (which favors those who are wealthy enough to buy homes over those who are not) or countless other policies that benefit wealthier Americans at the expense of those who are less fortunate. Instead, the media pretend this is a one-sided war -- as though the wealthy are being unfairly assaulted by an army of bullying waitresses and janitors and farmers and teachers.

Another reason is articles like [the] Washington Post front-pager. The Post tells us in paragraph one that Obama plans to raise taxes on the wealthy and waits until paragraph 18 to reveal that he plans to make permanent a tax credit for low- and middle-income workers. A tax increase that applies to almost nobody -- that leads the article. A tax credit that applies to much of the nation's workforce? Buried 18 paragraphs in."


Friday, November 7, 2008

That bitch is crazy! #62

Iran’s parliament sacked the interior minister, Ali Kordan, an ally of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for falsely claiming to have an honorary degree from Oxford University. --The Economist


"How much of a fraud is Bozell? In 1998, Bozell claimed the media weren't paying enough attention to Monica Lewinsky -- at a time when there were 500 news reports a day on the topic. Now he's alternately claiming Obama is a "socialist" and a "Reaganite." And in his column last week, he complained that a recent Project for Excellence in Journalism study overstated the extent of negative coverage of Obama by including "talk-radio hosts from Rush Limbaugh to Randi Rhodes" who are supposed to "express an opinion." But that complaint is completely false. The study in question specifically excluded talk radio. It's right there in the study's methodology: "Talk radio stories, which are part of PEJ's regular NCI, were not included in this campaign study of tone." If Brent Bozell tells you the sun is shining, you better grab an umbrella." --Media Matters for America