From Andrew Breitbart's November 21 BigGovernment.com post:
In response to the Columbia Journalism Review's accusing me of "blackmailing" the Attorney General of the United States, I must take notice that the mainstream media as a journalistic establishment IS paying attention to the ongoing ACORN scandal. Good. I thought so.
What the Columbia Journalism Review is doing is very similar to what Media Matters is doing: protecting the Democrat-Media Complex, the natural alliance of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. This ACORN investigation has been going on for two months and Hannah, James, and I have proven to be truth-tellers every step of the way, while the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now has been proven time and again to be liars.
Yet instead of engaging the real, newsworthy issues of ACORN's possible corruption, malfeasance and illegal behavior, the CJR, like its more overtly political online counterpart Media Matters, and indeed every other MSM outlet, has been sitting it out on the sidelines, waiting - rooting - for Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe and me to make a mistake. In fact, my appearance Thursday night is the only time in which the media has introduced itself into this ongoing narrative: proof that it's paying attention and taking sides.
And now to address the fever-swamp's notion that what I said on "Hannity" last night was "blackmail." Blackmail occurs when one party threatens to reveal an unsavory piece of information about another party, and demands money in exchange for silence. For obvious reasons, it is most often conducted in private. I, on the other hand, went on national television with a challenge to the Attorney General to do his job; unlike this administration and its justice department, what I did was fully open and transparent.
There will be consequences if there isn't an investigation into ACORN. The videos will be shown and at a particular moment. There is nothing illegal about my proposed response to the continued inaction from this justice department, and there's nothing I'd like more than to have my day in court and let a jury hear why I have gone to such extraordinary measures to tell a major story that the dying, partisan, leftist media has worked so hard to suppress.
The days of the Democrat-Media Complex controlling the narrative are in their end times. And if the AG wants to turn his focus on me instead of ACORN, then that day will be closer than many of them think.
From BigGovernment.com blogger Kyle Olson's November 20 post:
Brad O'Leary spends an entire Washington Examiner column responding to Media Matters' highlighting of his skewed Zogby polls and, more specifically, his racially charged poll question regarding Mark Lloyd:
The author of this "racially charged" language is none other than Obama's Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd himself. Here is what he said at the 2005 Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice:
"This - there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions.
"And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."
I find it equal parts troubling and incredible that in 21st Century America there could be anyone, much less a high-level federal appointee, who thinks the government should be forcing hirings-and-firings at private companies based solely on race and sexual preference.
Media Matters, evidently, is only outraged that someone would dare report the matter or ask America's opinion about it. Or maybe Media Matters thinks it is unfair to hold a presidential appointee responsible for something he said just four years ago.
O'Leary, however, did not include any of that background -- which the vast majority of respondents would have no knowledge of without it -- in asking his poll question, which was this:
Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech?
Also problematic for O'Leary is that the question, as asked, is false. As we've noted, at no point does Lloyd advocate using the FCC to "force good white people" in the broadcast industry out.
O'Leary has only himself to blame for his false, out-of-context framing of Lloyd's statement. And he's a veritable laugh riot in coming to Zogby's defense:
I choose to do polling with Zogby because they've been among the most accurate pollsters for the past two decades. I find that Zogby does very well in balancing my questions to remove any conservative or other bias that may exist. When you're searching for the truth, it does no good to rig the outcome.
A truly balanced poll would have included more points of view than those of "some people" and "most Republicans." But then, a guy who has written a book-length screed attacking Barack Obama is not actually interested in "searching for the truth."
In a December 26, 2007, post, Williams referred to former President Jimmy Carter as a "creepy little faggot":
On January 27, 2008, Williams wrote that members of a Vermont town shouldn't be called "retard CHUDs" but "genetically defective, circus freak, tiny cranium, hairy-arm-pitted female & faggot alleged male biological train wrecks who totally make the argument for forced Eugenics":
As we've noted, the Tea Party Express spokesman has also called President Obama and Jimmy Carter "Nazis," and referred to Obama as the "racist in chief." Williams is a birther who has forwarded claims that Obama was born in Kenya.
Despite his history of incendiary rhetoric, Williams is a regular guest on Fox News and CNN. For instance, Williams has appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 at least six times in the past four months: November 2, October 26, September 15, September 14, September 10, and August 13. He also appeared on CNN Newsroom in August. On the September 14 edition of American Morning, reporter Elaine Quijano referred to Williams as one of the "tea party leaders" who "disavow[ed] any racist views" by protestors.
Fox News, which frequently cheerleads for the tea party movement, has hosted Williams on Fox & Friends (numerous times), America's News HQ, and Hannity. Williams also appeared on Fox Business Network's Cavuto.
Given Williams' history of smears and slurs, and his prominent position with the Tea Party Express, will the media continue to extend "great coverage" to Williams and his group?
Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his November 20 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
John Amato at Crooks and Liars thinks so. His angle? With Fox News now routinely getting caught doctoring video and airing the misleading clips in its news reports, Amato thinks Rupert Murdoch's 'news' channel might be running afoul of FCC regulations.
Specifically, Amato points to this FCC language:
"Hoaxes. The Commission's prohibition against the broadcast of hoaxes is set forth at Section 73.1217 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1217.
This rule prohibits broadcast licensees or permittees from broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if: (1) the licensee knows this information is false; (2) it is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm; and (3) broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.
UPDATED: Rupert Murdoch can likely rest easy. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio, outlets that use the public airwaves. But the FCC does not regulate cable television.
From the November 20 edition of Fox News' Live Desk:
Here's one from today:
CNN Poll: Blame for recession shifting from GOP to Democrats
Here's the nut graph [emphasis added]:
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday morning indicates that 38 percent of the public blames Republicans for the country's current economic problems. That's down 15 points from May, when 53 percent blamed the GOP. According to the poll 27 percent now blame the Democrats for the recession, up 6 points from May. Twenty-seven percent now say both parties are responsible for the economic mess.
So, in the last six months, the percentage of Americans who blame Democrats for the recession has inched up six points, or one point per-month. That apparently, accounts for the "shifting" trend that CNN highlights in its headline. Also, note that a clear plurality still blame Republicans for the recession.
So wouldn't this headline have worked and actually been more accurate:
CNN Poll: Blame for recession still points to GOP
On Thursday, the prevaricating Gateway Pundit claimed Obama went on CNN and bragged that, "I've restored America's standing in the world." GP then mocked "The Arrogant One" for his massive ego. But oops, that's not what Obama said. Here's what he said: "We've restored America's standing in the world." [Emphasis added.] A little different, right?
But it's been more 24 hours and Gateway Pundit, supposedly one of the leaders of the conservative blogosphere, has not updated his original post or headline, let alone posted a correction to acknowledge that yeah, he doctored Obama's quote.
Behold the right-wing blogosphere, where manufactured quotes, even those involving the POTUS, are welcomed!