From RedState managing editor Erick Erickson's Twitter feed:
Well, this is interesting. Remember that "Why are liberals so condescending" piece by Gerard Alexander the Washington Post published last week? Turns out, the author didn't submit the piece the the Post -- the Post sought him out:
Bethesda, Md.: I thought that "Why are Liberals So Condescending" was the most intelligent article I've read in the Post in some time.
Do you think that this is the result of a decision by your editors to be more fair and balanced?
Also, I would appreciate your comments on the "All serious scientists agree that Global Warming is an enormous problem." school of thought. This matter has been positioned in exactly the same condescending manner.
Gerard Alexander: I can only tell you that the Post editor I dealt with searched me out, and were as encouraging as any editor could conceivably be.
I wonder when we'll find out that a Washington Post staffer is actively seeking out a similarly disparaging column about conservatives? After all, Howard Kurtz keeps telling us how liberal the Post's opinion operation is.
Meanwhile, Alexander spent the bulk of today's Washington Post online Q&A acknowledging that some conservatives are plenty condescending to liberals, but claiming that it just isn't very common. Or something. Alexander, for example, contends that "conservative magazines, elected officials, etc" don't accuse coastal liberals of being out of touch with heartland values -- and that if they did so, they'd be "run out of town."
In reality, of course, such accusations are not limited to conservatives; they are pervasive in the media. And those making such accusations are not "run out of town," they are given television shows on CNN.
From TNR [emphasis added]:
While bashing the media, Breitbart is a firewall against some of the tea party movement's more extreme, insular elements. His sites have never veered into birtherism, and he defended Generation Zero director Steve Bannon when the crowd instinctively booed the filmmaker's Harvard-to-Goldman Sachs career track.
False. As Media Matters has documented, Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood site has routinely veered into birtherism.
And yes, that made it a bit hard to believe Breitbart's claim over the weekend that birthers are suddenly out of bounds.
UPDATED: TNR has noted my correction request and changed the wording to this:
While bashing the media, Breitbart is a firewall against some of the tea party movement's more extreme, insular elements. His sites have only occasionally* veered into birtherism, and he defended Generation Zero director Steve Bannon when the crowd instinctively booed the filmmaker's Harvard-to-Goldman Sachs career track.
That strikes me as odd; sort of like being half pregnant. Birtherism is not something folks dabble in. Either you're in (i.e. Obama wasn't born here) or you're out (that's crazy talk.) Why would TNR point with approval to the fact that Breitbart's sites "only occasionally" veered into birtherism? Readers are supposed to be impressed by that?
And that goes to the larger point TNR was trying to make about Breitbart; that he's not "extreme" or "insular." It's just not true. And if you spend five minutes reading his sites, that fact becomes quite obvious.
From a StarKist statement posted on StopBeck.com, accessed February 8:
Our television media purchases are dictated by our marketing plan and are chosen based on time of day, such as early morning (6:00 - 10:00 a.m.) or primetime (8:00 to 11:00 p.m.); channel (ABC, Lifetime, ESPN, etc.) and audience demographics.
We do not dictate what program is on when our commercial airs. But we do frequently evaluate our media purchases to ensure that the programs we choose match our brand's target demographics and overall advertising plan. In doing so, we have chosen to not air our commercial during Glenn Beck's program going forward given a number of alternatives that meet our advertising plan's criteria.
Thanks again for your inquiry.
StarKist Consumer Affairs
Media Matters first noted the appearance of a StarKist advertisement on February 1st.
Politico's Michael Calderone noted yesterday Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon's broadside against the media, in which he told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace: "I'll tell you, Chris, the mainstream media hates the Tea Party movement almost as much as it hates Sarah Palin. And the reason is simple. That's because both are a threat. Palin is a threat down the road, whether it be in 2012 or beyond. The Tea Party is a threat because it is galvanizing Republicans."
As Calderone noted, Sammon conspicuously neglected to offer any proof that the mainstream media "hate" Palin and the tea partiers, beyond the implication that they must hate them because the mainstream media are hateful liberals. Calderone also noted that Sammon was given a thorough Twitter-lashing by NBC's Chuck Todd, who expected something better from his Fox News friend.
But let's take a quick trip down memory lane, back to when a Fox News producer got a little too wrapped up in the network's embarrassingly over-the-top rah-rah coverage of the tea parties and openly whipped up a 9/12 crowd before a live report. Sammon responded by releasing a perfunctory staff memo on "standards," gently reminding his employees that they're supposed to at least pretend to act like journalists sometimes.
In that memo, Sammon told his staff not to become "part of the story;" to look at things in a "fair, impartial manner;" not to "cheerlead for one cause or another;" and to preserve their "legitimate journalistic role as detached eyewitnesses." I'd be comfortable saying that Sammon - in his own Tea Party-promoting, Palin-boosting, conservative-leaning, Obama-bashing, Bush-lionizing way -- has failed to adhere to each and every one of those precepts.
But let's be honest - Sammon never intended that he or his staff adhere to those high-minded journalistic standards, because that's simply not how the collection of political activists posing as journalists at Fox News operate.
Washington Post reporter Perry Bacon, on the health care legislation passed by the House and the Senate:
At the core of it, the Democratic plans don't do a lot for people who already have insurance, a point the Republicans will make repeatedly.
Oh, really? Here's the Washington Post's report on Senate passage:
Senate Democrats approved landmark legislation just after sunrise Christmas Eve that would transform the nation's health-care system by requiring people without insurance to obtain coverage and protecting those who have it from the most unpopular private insurance practices.
The bills' scope is vast, but Democrats are counting on consumer-friendly provisions -- including some that would take effect right away -- as selling points to a skeptical public. In the Senate bill, sick uninsured people with preexisting medical conditions could immediately obtain private coverage through state-based high-risk insurance pools, and insurers could no longer deny coverage to children under age 18 with preexisting conditions. Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees would become eligible for tax credits to purchase insurance for their workers. Adults 26 years old or younger could remain on their parents' policies.
Six months after enactment of the plan, co-payments and deductibles on preventive services, including physical examinations, immunizations, and mammograms, would be eliminated for everyone. Insurers would be barred from dropping beneficiaries when they become sick and from imposing lifetime limits on coverage.
But Bacon's claim that the legislation doesn't "do a lot for people who already have health insurance" doesn't just ignore specific provisions that directly help people who already have insurance -- it ignores the fact that they may not have that insurance forever, and it ignores the indirect benefits that stand to gain from refrom. Here's a Washington Post overview of what health care reform could mean for people who already have insurance:
You can't just ignore these things when assessing whether reform would "do a lot for people who already have health insurance."
When MoveOn ran a newspaper ad referring to General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us," the Washington Times was not amused. One Washington Times editorial said the ad "sets the new standard for bad-faith, motive-impugning argument. This is beyond the pale, sinking swiftly to the level of Klansmen and Neo-Nazis" and blasted MoveOn for suggesting Petraeus was not being honest. Another suggested MoveOn was guilty of "slandering" Petraeus. Another blasted the New York Times for running the ad:
He [New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt] also cites company policy against scurrilousness in advertising: "We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature," read the guidelines. Someone should have recognized that calling a decorated general a liar and a person likely to "Betray Us" is, in fact, an attack of a personal nature, even considering the very public circumstances.
The Washington Times was quite clear: ads calling a high-ranking military official a liar are deeply inappropriate. So imagine my surprise when this appeared in my email inbox this morning:
The email, sent by the Washington Times, was an ad from The Pray In Jesus Name Project, and it repeatedly accused Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs chairman Admiral Mike Mullen of lying to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
There's much more -- more than 2,400 words in all. Here's a representative sample:
Sadly, the pro-homosexual Mullen has believed the lies of homosexual propaganda, and deceived himself, and now deceived Congress, all the while claiming he wants a more honest policy that discourages lying, when in fact Mullen actually demands homosexuals tell more lies to their military commanders when enlisting as open homosexuals. Here's a simple proof: Men who were created by God with male body parts are not women, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, women. Women who were created by God with female parts are not men, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, men.
Mullen's confused argument would permit men to deceptively act like women, and women to deceptively act like men, openly deceiving themselves, the world, and their military commanders, and boldface lying against God's very truth, that He created men to be men, and women to be women. But today's confusing homosexual propaganda equates "honesty" with men openly flaunting their femininity, and "truthfulness" with women openly flaunting masculinity. Who's really telling God's truth?
The Bible describes homosexual liars: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie...women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error." (Romans 1). Thank God Senator John McCain (R-AZ) denounced the Admiral's deceptive plan as destructive to the military, but Senator McCain needs your help to fight this open perversion, and protect our troops from open homosexual aggression...
CBS news interviewed homosexual Army Lt. Dan Choi, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at Werest Point who currently faces discharge for publicly announcing he's gay.
"I think it's a very healthy thing for people to be able to tell the truth and to come to terms with who they are. I think it's a sign of maturity," Choi said, "At my very first day at West Point, I learned that the honor code says a cadet will not lie, will not tolerate those who lie," said Choi. "They didn't say that a cadet who was gay could lie whereas straight cadets didn't have to lie."
As a USAF Academy graduate knowing the honor code, I now personally confront Choi as a liar, who now openly violates his honor oath, since he deceives himself and the world, by claiming to be feminine, when God created him masculine, with a male body. LIAR. Choi should immediately be thrown out of the Army, not merely for sexual perversion, but for DISHONESTY AND LYING. The only reason he graduated West Point is that he never lied by openly claiming to be feminine while a cadet, when God created him to be masculine. THIS PROVES DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS THE MOST HONEST POLICY, because it encourages people with sexual perversions not to openly lie about their sexual identity. But if DADT is repealed by Congress, men will claim to be women, and women will claim to be men, and the open season of dishonesty and lying will begin.
From the Fox Nation:
From Erick Erickson's Twitter feed:
Last week, using the comical James O'Keefe arrest and the childish conservative name-calling that followed Obama's SOTU, I detailed the sad state of "conservative journalism." And I wondered out loud what Bill Buckley would think of things. He, of course, was the father of modern day conservative journalism and was known for running the serious National Review, a magazine that today often seems purposefully un-serious.
Naturally, thin-skinned NR editor Jonah Goldberg threw a hissy fit, insisting I had no idea what I was talking about.
Apparently, "conservative journalism" is a paragon of accountability and responsibility. Except, of course, when it's not. And except, of course, when National Review for days refuses to correct blatantly false and defamatory allegations, even after the glaring falsehoods have been spotlighted for everyone to see.
In other words, late last week the folks at National Review neatly confirmed my point about the sad state of today's "conservative journalism." (Thanks Jonah!)
To recap: Last week, after a conservative blogger known as Jim Treacher was hit by an SUV while crossing the street in Washington, D.C., he claimed he'd been run over by a Secret Service vehicle. National Review's Greg Pollowitz then broadcast that claim, stating it as fact [emphasis added]:
Jim Treacher, a very funny blogger for Tucker Carlson's new Daily Caller website, was involved in a hit-and-run car accident yesterday — involving the Secret Service.
But it turns out the Secret Service had nothing to do with accident, and there's no evidence it was a "hit-and-run." Those facts have been known, and have been acknowledged, since last Thursday.
Yet to date, no correction has been attached to the original National Review item, which made incendiary, and false, claims against the Secret Service.
Behold, "conservative journalism."
UPDATED: Turns out that Pollowitz on Feb. 5 posted an "update" (not a correction) on the supposed "hit-and-run." The "update" though, was not attached to the original NR item.
Here's the "update" in full:
The latest is that it was not the Secret Service that ran over conservative blogger Jim Treacher, but possibly a security employee of the State Department.
UPDATE:This is looking more and more like a scandal and cover-uip with every report.
Note that Pollowitz never acknowledges that he made two sizable errors in his original post. In other words, National Review never takes responsibility for falsely accusing the Secret Service of hitting Treacher as part of a "hit-and-run"; allegations that were supported by zero facts at the time.
In fact, in the "update," there's suddenly no mention of National Review's dubious "hit-and-run" allegation. Instead, it was conveniently flushed down the memory hole. (There was no "hit-and-run." The SUV that hit Treacher stopped at the scene.)
So we'll start the clock running again: When is National Review finally going to post a correction for falsely claiming the Secret Service was invovled in a "hit-and-run" accident last week?