Boy, it's like the Newsbusters crew is trying to set some sort of record for inane media criticism in a single day. Earlier, Tim Graham said the Washington Post's obituary of Patrick Swayze proved the paper's liberal bias by not mentioning Red Dawn until the 23rd paragraph.
Now Mark Finkelstein attacks MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan for conducting a "fawning" interview of Barney Frank, with Finkelstein throwing around the words "sycophant" and "suck-up" and "appeasing" to describe Ratigan's behavior.
Here's the problem: the interview in question included a testy exchange in which Ratigan repeatedly interrupted Frank as he tried to answer a question.
It's awfully strange to see an interview in which the interviewee feels the need to insist "I'm trying to answer it ... I'm trying to answer it ... these things are somewhat complicated. And they can't all be answered in eight seconds. ... So I wish you would let me answer the question" described as "fawning," but that's what passes as media criticism on the Right.
The paper devotes an entire article to the question of how many people showed up for the anti-Obama rally on Saturday, and the newspaper (surprise!) politely ignores the details surrounding the now-infamous 2 million protester lie, helped spread by Michelle Malkin. If you're going to write a news story about the weekend crowds, that's the story. But still, the Times plays dumb. It's just the latest example of how the mainstream political press fails to hold the GOP Noise Machine accountable. How right-wing pundits like Malkin can lie with immunity.
BTW, the Times piece is just a weak piece of lazy journalism.
Headline with subhead:
Crowd estimates vary wildly for Capitol march: How many angry conservatives showed up to protest Obama's policies? Was it 2 million? Or 60,000? It all depends on whom you ask.
See how the bogus "2 million" mark was right there in the headline? It's then planted in the lede:
But even before the march was over, the news media, bloggers and rally supporters were wrangling over the crowd count, with estimates ranging from 60,000 to 2 million.
Where, specifically, did the (fictitious) 2 million figure come from? The Times never bothers to report that detail. The Times article is completely silent regarding the fact that Malkin pushed that concocted figure and did it by referring to a non-existent ABC News report. The Times is also silent regarding the fact that right-wing bloggers spent all of Saturday spreading the blatantly untrue 2 million figure, despite the fact ABC News was on the record denying it ever reported the crowd was that big.
In other words, the Times writes a story about Saturday's crowd estimates and completely misses the story, which was how the right-wing noise machine was, once again, busy spreading blatant lies and comical misinformation. But newspaper like the Times don't like to tell those kinds of tales. Because what would those nasty conservative bloggers would write in response?!
UPDATED: The Times concluded the actual crowd size was probably very low six figures:
Although no official crowd estimates were issued, local officials and an expert indicated the number was more likely under 100,000, still a sizable turnout.
The newspaper though, remains silent (it makes no judgment) regarding the fact that the bloggers' estimate, which the Times used in its headline and lede, was off by 1.9 million people.
WaPo Patrick Swayze Obit Gets to His Drag-Queen Movie Before 'Red Dawn'
Here's a sign the Washington Post is a liberal newspaper: today's Adam Bernstein obituary for Patrick Swayze begins obviously by noting his big hits "Ghost" and "Dirty Dancing," but doesn't get to "Red Dawn" until paragraph 23. Even then, Bernstein wrongly suggests he had a supporting role
I'm not kidding. Graham really wrote that. It actually happened.
UPDATE: Even Newsbusters' commenters are bewildered that Graham would post such an inane media-bias claim, leading him to respond in the comments:
It's merely an amusing little sign of how the Post doesn't have anyone inside the building to say "hey, didn't you ever see Red Dawn?"
And, really, what newsroom is complete without anyone saying "Hey, didn't you ever see Red Dawn"?
Mark Salter, longtime chief-of-staff and head writer for John McCain, has a column in Real Clear Politics entitled "The Media's Pathetic Double Standard," in which he complains that the media is more critical of incivility by Republicans than Democrats. Salter, of course, is an almost uniquely inappropriate messenger for that particular message, for reasons we'll get to in a moment.
Salter's column is a case study in the use of false equivalence. For example:
Today's "birthers," are no more offensive or weird than those who believe the Bush Administration was complicit in planning the attacks of September 11
There is, of course, a bit of a difference: Today's "Birthers" count among their ranks several Republican members of congress and famous conservative media figures.
Many thousands of demonstrators marched on the Washington Mall last Saturday to protest Democratic healthcare reform proposals, and the Obama administration's record spending and centralization of economic power in the federal government. The Washington Post headlined the event as "Lashing Out at the Capitol." I can't recall the Post using a similar verb choice to characterize the expressions of anti- war protestors, some of whom carried posters bearing President Bush's likeness in a Nazi uniform and Hitler moustache.
Saturday's right-wing protest march in Washington -- based on a disparate and at times conflicting set of of grievances -- was given front-page play in the Washington Post. A 2002 anti-war rally in DC that drew 100,000 people was buried in the Metro section. And Salter thinks this is an example of a pro-liberal double standard! Incredible.
The Post's decision to bury coverage of that anti-war rally deep inside the paper may explain Salter's inability to recall the paper portraying the protesters negatively. Still, you would think the guy would do a simple Nexis search to confirm his clearly flawed memory before spouting off. Had he done so, he would have found this Post Ombudsman column:
Last Saturday, some 100,000 people, and possibly more, gathered in downtown Washington to protest against possible U.S. military action against Iraq. The Post did not put the story on the front page Sunday. It put it halfway down the front page of the Metro section, with a couple of ho-hum photographs that captured the protest's fringe elements.
I despair of the coarsening of our politics and our broader culture. So much so that after a lifetime in politics I'm beginning to think I might have rendered more honorable service to humanity had I worked in professional wrestling. That independents, who decide elections in this country, seem to feel the same way is enough encouragement to hope that perhaps we are still capable of reform. But our political discourse won't begin to recover any civility until we get some referees back in the game, who will call bullshit on both sides.
Which brings us to the problem with Mark Salter delivering this particular message. Salter's longtime boss, John McCain, has been responsible for some of the most intemperate displays of incivility in modern American politics -- and the media largely gave him a pass for it.
When McCain called a teenaged Chelsea Clinton "ugly," the media gave him a pass. When he praised as "excellent" a question that referred to Hillary Clinton as a "bitch," the media gave him a pass. When McCain used an ethnic slur to refer to the Vietnamese, the media barely batted an eye.
You'd be hard pressed to find an American politician who ever benefited from media double-standards as much as John McCain did -- particularly when it came to looking the other way when he said something nasty. And here's Mark Salter, claiming his party has been the victim of such double-standards.
And, given the media's decade-long love affair with McCain, you just know the media is going to buy this nonsense.
Honestly, I think folks on the right should just stop talking about crowd estimates for Saturday. That hole is already deep enough.
Still, the latest laugh installment comes from Charlie Martin at Pajamas Media, the same right-wing Pajamas Media that did its best to spread comical misinformation over the weekend about how 2 million people had attended the 9/12 tea party. Local D.C. official had a slightly different take on the crowd: between 60-70,000.
So yeah, there's a 1,930,000 gap.
Martin's determined to get to the bottom of the mystery and yes, Martin completely ignores the humiliating role Michelle Malkin played in pushing the 2 million nonsense over the weekend. No need to embarrass Malkin, Martin just wants to uncover the facts of the attendance mystery.
Here's the part that made me laugh:
Now, via [blogger Stephen] Green, we have a number reported by Barbara Espinosa from the "people meter" on Pennsylvania Ave — a total of 1.5 million people passed by during the march. Now, that's some kind of direct count, but we don't know what kind — if anyone has any information on this "people meter" I'd love to see it — so let's save that as an estimate and see what else we get.
According to Green, somebody counted every person who walked down Pennsylvania Ave. on Saturday and voilà! It was 1.5 million. What Martin failed to mention in his post was that Stephen Green seemed to have a very hard time on Saturday keeping any sort of facts straight about the crowd count.
As I recently noted:
And then there was the sad, confused work of blogger Stephen Green. Doing his best to spread the word about the supposedly massive crowd size on Saturday, Green first claimed that CNN had reported the crowd was 2 million strong. (CNN never did any such thing.) Then later under a banner that read "correction," Green, following Malkin's phony lead, reported it was ABC News that reported 2 million protesters were on hand. (Green then failed to correct his "correction.")
UPDATED: Oh yeah, over the weekend, right-wing bloggers tried to bolster their case for a crowd of 2 million by posting a bogus aerial photo of the ant-Obama rally.
So there's that.
The sign read: "Why does Obama need his own army?? Civilian National Security Force. Who's the enemy? U.S. Civilians?"
More than 60 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 September 14 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
News Corp. (The Wall Street Journal)
Conservatives for Patient's Rights
Clarity Media Group (The Weekly Standard)
Roche Diagnostics (Accu-Chek Aviva)
Goldline International, Inc
On June 2, David Horowitz wrote a post on his FrontPageMag blog denouncing inflammatory anti-Obama rhetoric, such as claiming that President Obama wants to take advantage of a "Reichstag fire" type of incident to "terminate our Republic as Hitler did the Weimar Republic in the 1930s" (as WorldNetDaily's David Kupelian had claimed the day before). Horowitz wrote: "Obama is a machine politician and whatever dangers he represents (and as I see it there are many) are dangers because they reflect the heart and soul of today's Democratic Party, not because he is a Manchurian candidate or a closet Islamist, as more than a few conservatives seem to think."
How times change. A Sept. 11 FrontPageMag article by Horowitz carries the headline "The Manchurian Candidate." The front page of FrontPageMag promoted the article with this image:
So when does Horowitz start touting the "new Reichstag fire"?
According to a press release by ColorOfChange.org (emphasis added):
The advertising boycott of Glenn Beck has cost the controversial host over half of his estimated advertising revenue since it was launched by ColorOfChange.org a month ago. This according to data analyzed from industry sources.
Estimated advertising revenue [the total amount of advertising money being spent during a block of commercial time for a program] was collected on a week-by-week basis for a period of two months. According to the data collected, the amount of money spent by national advertisers on Beck's program per week was at its highest at approximately $1,060,000, for the week ending August 2, 2009. ColorOfChange.org launched their campaign at the end of that week and since then, 62 advertisers have distanced themselves from Beck. Data collected for the week ending September 6, 2009 shows Beck's estimated ad revenue at $492,000, equal to a loss of $568,000.
ColorOfChange.org launched its campaign against Beck last month after the Fox News Channel host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance on Fox & Friends, remarks that they say indicates a pattern of race-baiting and fear-mongering on Beck's part. ColorOfChange.org called on its members to sign a petition urging companies who advertise on Glenn Beck to cut off their advertising support of his work. To date, over 180,000 people have signed the petition and 62 companies have pledged to not run any additional advertisements during Glenn Beck's show.