Right-Wing Smears Disguised As Media Criticism
August 02, 2011 8:36 am ET by Eric Boehlert
We have often commented on the sad state of conservative media criticism and how the supposed press analysis from the right is often nothing more than partisan rants or transparent scapegoating.
It’s actually gotten worse as the right-wing media now regularly unleash smear campaigns and pretend they’re calling out the supposedly liberal media; nasty, drive-by smear campaigns built on obvious, provable lies.
It’s an ugly trend. Just ask CBS’ Norah O’Donnell and the New York Times’ Jennifer Preston. Preston was maligned late last week by Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller in the form of a Neil Munro ‘article’ that alleged Preston was somehow advising the White House about its Twitter strategy regarding the debt ceiling debate.
The claim, based on Munro’s (purposefully?) absurd misreading of Preston’s tweets, was almost comical in its foolishness. (She never offered the White House any advice.) As the Washington Post’s Eric Wemple noted, the Daily Caller attack was nothing more than an indefensible “cheap shot.” Preston, who often covers social media for the Times, was simply doing her job by asking which hashtag to follow after the president urged people to tweet their thoughts on the debt debate to their representatives.
Nonetheless, the smear excited the GOP Noise Machine as the usual suspects (i.e. the ones allergic to fair play) eagerly pushed the non-story, which then prompted further attacks against Preston online.
We saw the same kind of cheap shot aimed at CBS’s Norah O’Donnell yesterday. Like the ugly Daily Caller ambush, the sloppy O’Donnell smear was also utterly fabricated.
At Commentary, Seth Mandel implausibly claimed O’Donnell had harangued White House spokesman Jay Carney during a briefing about the debt deal, complaining “we” got “nothing” out of the negotiations. In other words, Mandel pretended O’Donnell, speaking on behalf of the liberal media, was mad about the debt negotiations. (Not progressive enough!)
Right, except the video of the exchange makes it perfectly clear O’Donnell said this [emphasis added]:
I hear Democrats saying you gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing!
This is pure sophistry. And trying to defend it is pointless.
But guess who ran with the poorly manufactured smear campaign under the banner of Media Criticism? If you guessed Fox News and Michelle Malkin’s site, among others, you are correct.

Complaining about the so-called liberal media has been a hallmark of the conservative movement for more than four decades. Concocting hollow smear campaigns targeting individual reporters represents a more recent, and contemptible, trend.

















FOX NEWS - We Distort, You're Deceived
"We distort and you remain misinformed"
Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox Lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies!
Page Not Found
...oh...
....wait....
*shakes head*
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health
TARP was authorized when Bush was President (although much of the spending occured in 2009, it was spending that Bush caused, not Obama)
–in economic downturns, you don’t only get a decrease in revenues–you also get an automatic increase in spending (for welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance) caused not by policy choices made in 2009, but by the act of previously enacted legislation. This would have occured if McCain had been President, and the effect with 9.8% unemployment is actually massive
–in the Defense budget, we operate in 5 year planning budgets. The Obama DoD budget has not been very different that the budget plans laid out by Bush)
–almost all of the increased Obama spending that is not the result of the economic downturn is actually one-time stimulus spending that will expire next year. The reason Bush went from a surplus to deficits, however, was caused by systemic policy changes: the unfunded Medicare prescription beefit (which was huge and unfunded) and the Bush tax cuts (that, as we all know, expire this year).
–at the time of the stimulus, many economists (like Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman) thought it was too small give the size of the downturn. I personally think these economists have been proven right, and because the economy is still iffy (as a result), political support for more is just not there. I fear we are in the same position as we were in 1937–our recovery in the depression was cut short because we cut spending. We only got out of the depression because of the MASSIVe deficit spending caused by WWII. (For what its worth, I think the idea of a payroll tax holidy would make the most sense now as a second wave of stimulus so you can’t paint me as a tax and spend liberal.
–the cause of the structural deficit we face in future years is largely driven by the increased cost of health care, and low economic growth. As the 1990′s showed us, if we make progress in economic growth and reduce the rate of health care costs, we will be fine.
Have these people ever thought of maybe reading a transcript if they find it difficult to hear? Or is that also a part of the "liberal media"?
Of course it's 'liberal' - we (libs and cons alike) are not entertained by watching people live the lives of our own, but entertained by things we can only dream about - and for those who have dreams and aspirations, realize they (dreams and aspirations) are by definition NOT 'socially conservative'.
The moment you stepped out of lock step - you became a social liberal. But hollywood has proven, that's what makes them more $$$.
Do you see the inherent boredom in social conservatism?
Hollywood did half century ago. Perhaps it's time for a memo?
Same with news - do we rush to tune in for a story about how a boy scout helped granny across the street. No, but we all (libs and cons alike) do when its about a hate crime against some same sex marriage proponent. Now - That's news - right?! (both a question and a statement)
When I heard about ConTV (Kelsey Grammar) I wondered what shows they would have.... '24' and 'All in the family' re-runs? well at least some cons will loose some of their modes of influence (cash) playing the 'libs' game in the 'libs' casinos. .
But... we all know the libs will again be the villains for this doomed failure while the theater continues.