That phrase makes me nostalgic for 2002 or 2003, because, let's face it, that's probably the last time people actually had that debate about Fox News. Clearly the question on the table today isn't whether Fox News is "fair and balanced." (Almost nobody thinks it is.) It's whether Fox News still even resembles a legitimate news organization. (Hint: It does not.)

But that doesn't stop Robert Lichter from the Center for Media and Public Affairs, who argues in Forbes that Fox News is really, really fair and balanced, specifically when it comes to the channel's coverage of Obama. Not surprisingly there are all sorts of problems with Lichter's pitch. The first rather obvious hurdle is that Lichter spends a lot of time dissecting Fox News' 2008 treatment of Obama. Lichter claims Fox News is fair and balanced today based on how it covered Obama 12 months ago.

I don't mean to be a stickler here, but the latest debate sparked by the White House is that in 2009 Fox News no longer functions as a legitimate news organization. And that in 2009 Fox News has basically cut the chord with traditional journalism. So I'm just not sure about the usefulnesses of Lichter's commentary since he spends a lot of it looking back on 2008.

That's actually only the first glaring problem in Lichter's piece. The second? To prove Fox News was "fair and balanced" to Obama in 2008, Lichter notes the results of an on-going Center for Media and Public Affairs study which monitors political news coverage on TV. As part of the study, CMPA monitors the  first 30 minutes of Fox News' nightly Special Report. And that's it. Yet from that tiny, almost laughably small 30-minute daily sample, Lichter draws sweeping conclusions about whether a 24-hour news channel is "fair and balanced"? That's almost too silly for words. Lichter makes conclusions about Fox News while ignoring more than 90 percent  of its programming day?

More? Sadly, there is. In his Forbes piece, Lichter actually concedes that even judging Fox News from just that 30- minute chunk of Special Report last year, the channel delivered more negative coverage of the Democratic candidate than did the nightly newscasts for ABC, CBS, and NBC. In fact, on Fox News last year, 64 percent of Special Report's evaluations of Obama were unfavorable. But somehow Fox News was "fair and balanced" in 2008?

More? Yep. Lichter eventually addresses how "fair and balanced" Fox News has treated Obama in 2009, at least according to CMPA. The conclusion? [Emphasis added]

It turns out that Fox's coverage of President Obama has been even more negative than its coverage of candidate Obama: From Inauguration Day to Oct. 10, only 27% of Special Report's comments on the president were favorable

I'm not making this up. Lichter claims Fox News has been fair to Obama, yet concedes that on one of Fox News' few  remaining 'straight' news program, the commentary has been overwhelmingly negative toward the president this year, just as it was toward Obama in 2008.  

Safe to say, Lichter's attempt to exonerate Fox News is lacking. But hey, at least the guys at Newsbusters like it.

That's the claim made by the Times' former editorial page Richard Miniter, who also claims he was "coerced" by the newspaper's president into attending a Unification Church mass wedding ceremony in New York City last year. The Moonie Times, owned by the Rev. Sung Myung Moon, the self-proclaimed son of God, has been beset  with internal, Moonie-related conflict. Editor John Solomon quit the daily last week.

Miniter has filed discrimination charges, according to a report in today's Washington Examiner. The article reports:

This incident and several others make up the discrimination charges that Miniter filed Tuesday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He said he was discriminated against because of his religion, age and disability. He also maintained that the company's vice president of human resources started a series of investigations against him, causing him to work from home, in retribution for his refusal to sign a fraudulent document. In addition, he says, he signed a year-long contract with the paper in February when he was promoted to editorial page editor. "The Times backed me in a corner and it looked like the company was going to go under and not ... pay me," Miniter said.

Miniter's complaint comes at a time when The Washington Times' future is in question. The paper's top three executives were ousted last week, and the departure of the top editor John Solomon soon followed. "We tried for weeks to amicably work something out," Miniter said. "With the departure of John Solomon and the other executives, I don't know if the company is going to exist next week," he added, as an explanation for why he chose now to file these claims. 

On the November 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly referenced a 2008 report by the Media Research Center's Culture & Media Institute, which claims that out of 69 stories on network news about Sarah Palin in the two-week period examined, 37 were negative, 30 were neutral and only two were positive. O'Reilly further complained, citing the report: "Twenty-one of the stories portrayed Sarah Palin as unintelligent and unqualified. Eight stories used clips from Saturday Night Live to ridicule her." O'Reilly added: "Is that kind of presentation an accident? No."

But the report O'Reilly cited was more a function of the MRC's shilling for Palin than any serious media research. The tone of the report is more about complaining that anything negative was reported about Palin at all, what was reported didn't reflect the McCain campaign's talking points, and (channeling Stephen Colbert) facts and reality have a well-known liberal bias.

The report's scope was carefully limited to only the broadcast news networks -- no Fox News -- and only to coverage in "the two weeks beginning September 29 and ending October 12," thus avoiding having to discuss the period immediately following Palin's nomination and Republican National Convention speech, when news coverage of her was largely -- and perhaps disproportionately -- positive.

The report conflated negative coverage with bias, scoring stories by "negative," "positive" and "neutral," then deciding that the network that ran the most "negative" stories versus "neutral" or "positive" ones was the "most biased." Despite suggesting that the "negative" stories were not factual or fair, no evidence is offered to support it. The report's basic premise is that all news about Palin must be balanced or positive, whether or not the facts call for it.

The report complained: "Most observers agree that Palin did not perform well in the [Katie] Couric interview, but the network coverage dwelled on the worst moments, making Palin look as unprepared and inexperienced as possible." After noting the focus on Palin's refusal to give a straight answer to Couric's question about what magazines and newspapers she read, the report further stated:

The network coverage of this exchange left the impression that Palin was unable to identify any news sources because she isn't interested in current events -- an implausible supposition to make about an accomplished politician.

The networks would have provided a more accurate portrayal of Palin had they highlighted the Alaska governor's thoughtful responses to other questions from Couric.

The report doesn't mention the fact that Palin could have avoided that kind of focus by simply giving a straight answer to the question.

The report then baselessly asserted that "Palin's strong performance during the October 2 vice-presidential debate sucked the oxygen out of the attacks on her qualifications and intellect," failing to note that polls taken immediately after the debate found that a majority of viewers thought that Joe Biden won. The report also complained that Tina Fey's dead-on Saturday Night Live impression of Palin got media attention, calling the impression "demeaning" and adding: "Funny stuff, but is it news?"

After lamenting that the networks reported "criticism of Palin from a handful of conservative writers," the report added, "The networks failed to mention that Palin enjoyed the enthusiastic support of far more influential conservative pundits, including premier talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin." So a guy who said, as Levin did, "It's not the National Organization of Liberal Women. It's the National Organization of Ugly Women," is a "premier" conservative radio host in the eyes of the MRC?

The report went on to express annoyance that the networks were "depicting Palin as nothing more than GOP presidential nominee John McCain's attack dog. ... Rather than investigate the substance of Palin's accusations against Obama, the media suggested the criticism was somehow improper." In fact, Palin was the McCain campaign's attack dog, substantive allegations or no.

Finally, the report arrived at its key bit of annoyance: "The networks failed to acknowledge adequately that Palin was doing more during her speeches than attacking Obama. She was also talking about issues, McCain's plans for the nation, and her own qualifications." In other words, the networks weren't mindlessly repeating McCain campaign talking points to the MRC's satisfaction.

This is a study that simply can't be taken seriously and must be seen through the MRC's pro-Palin, anti-media agenda.

The conservative Examiner newspaper is hyping a new poll from pollster John Zogby that purportedly shows that 43% of respondents would support the re-election of President Obama. The poll was commissioned by Brad O'Leary (author of an anti-Obama book called "The Audacity of Deceit"), who has previously comissioned misleading polls to push an anti-Obama agenda.

Zogby was recently caught pushing a racially charged poll question asking if the FCC should ask "good white people" to step aside for African-Americans and gays.

In February, Zogby pushed out an anti-stimulus poll with some extremely loaded language.

With that kind of track record and pedigree, Zogby's work should probably be treated with healthy skepticism.

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 17 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Rosland Capital
• US Chamber of Congress
• American Advisors Group
• Goldline International, Inc.
• TaxMasters
• LifeLock
• Clarity Media Group (The Weekly Standard)
• Roche Diagnostics (Accu-Check Aviva)
• USfidelis
• Wholesale Direct Metals
• Lifestyle Lift
• Identity Guard
• Superior Gold Group
• Hear Music (Paul McCartney, "Good Evening New York City")
• IRSTaxAgreements.com
• Sony Music Entertainment (Susan Boyle, "I Dreamed a Dream")
• Imperial Structured Settlements
• National Review

Everybody knows about the non-apology apology -- when a public figure says, for example, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" rather than "I shouldn't have made that racist comment, and I apologize for doing so."

It turns out the non-apology apology has a sibling: the non-explanation explanation.

This week's issue of Newsweek features a cover photo of Sarah Palin wearing short running shorts -- a photo that was originally taken for a recent issue of Runner's World, and which has no obvious connection to Newsweek's coverage of Palin. Earlier today, Media Matters' Julie Millican has explained the problems with that cover:

Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo -- "How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?" -- presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, "Maria," in which nuns fret about "how" to "solve a problem like Maria," a "girl" who "climbs trees" and whose "dress has a tear." 

Now, this photograph may have been completely appropriate for the cover of the magazine for which the picture was apparently intended, Runners World. But Newsweek is supposed to be a serious newsmagazine, and the magazine is certainly not reporting on Palin's exercise habits.

As Julie noted, Newsweek's lousy judgement extended beyond the cover: The magazine also ran a gratuitous photo focusing on Palin's legs, and another photo of a "disgusting Sarah Palin-as-a-slutty-schoolgirl doll."

So what does Newsweek have to say for themselves?  The magazine's editor responded to a question from Politico's Michael Calderone, but he couldn't even muster an "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" non-apology apology:

Editor Jon Meacham responds in an email to POLITICO: "We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."

That's a textbook example of the non-explanation explanation.  Read it again, and tell me: What does it mean?  Meacham wants you to think he's explaining the cover choice, but he really isn't.  

How, exactly, does putting Sarah Palin on the cover in short shorts "illustrate the theme of the cover"?  (Let's assume Meacham meant the theme of the cover article; saying you choose a cover photo to illustrate the theme of the cover is more than a bit circular.)  Meacham doesn't say.  What is that theme?  Meacham doesn't say.  

How does the leg-centric image of Palin's legs "convey what we are saying"?  Meacham doesn't explain.  What is Newsweek "saying" with the article and the photo?  Meacham doesn't explain.

It's a refusal to explain, dressed up as an explanation.  

Another recent example: When Washington Post reporters Chris Cillizza and Dana Milbank produced an infantile and unfunny video calling Hillary Clinton a "bitch" and describing a wife suing for divorce from a cheating spouse as a "bitter woman from hell,"  they tried to explain the controversy away by saying the video was "satire."

But they didn't say what it was they were supposed to be satirizing.  That's probably because what they were doing quite plainly was not satire; it was simply a couple of jerks sitting around making mean-spirited and sexist comments.  There is a difference.

It's satire ... The photo illustrates the theme of the cover ... These things are designed to look like explanations; to win credit for addressing the issue and to cut off further questions and to justify bad behavior.  But they aren't actually explanations at all.  They are a refusal to deal with criticism in a forthright way, and should be recognized (and mocked) as such.  Just as we all recognize the non-apology apology for what it is. 

Today on Lou Dobbs' radio show, Newsbusters' Candance Moore echoed Glenn Beck's up-is-down conspiracy theory that the Obama administration's support for net neutrality amounts to a plot to "control the internet." 

As we've pointed out before, this is patently absurd. 

[N]et neutrality -- which was the law of the land from the creation of the Internet until 2005, and which ensured that Internet Service Providers were not able to control content -- has been cited by numerous Internet pioneers as the guiding principle in Internet development and innovation.

To recap: Beck and Moore's logic pretzel transforms legislation that prevents ISPs from exerting any control over content into a plot to control content.  Aside from being a laughable attempt to smear any and all Obama administration initiatives, Moore just indicated that her boss supports a nefarious plot to "control the internet." 

Newsbusters is the blog of Media Research Center, which was started by Brent Bozell.  One of the most prominent advocates of net neutrality is Save the Internet, a group of oranizations "working together to urge Congress to preserve Net Neutrality."  Charter members include Free Press, the Christian Coalition, and the Parents Television Council.  The founder of the Parents Television Council?  Brent Bozell.

Sometimes they make it too easy for us.  I wonder if they'll discuss this at the next staff meeting. 

It seems like Mr. Murdoch is on a tear, last week he went after President Obama with an invented quote, and now he's made some tasteless remarks about NY governor David Paterson who became legally blind after an ear infection he suffered as an infant.

From the Huffington Post:

At Tuesday's Wall Street Journal's CEO Council, Murdoch was asked about the state of civil discourse, but he wanted to speak about the problems in American politics. In doing so, he trashed New York Governor David Paterson by describing him as "a very nice, honest man who's blind and can't read braille and doesn't really know what's going on."

From the ADL special report "Rage Grows In America: Anti-Government Conspiracies":

The most important mainstream media figure who has repeatedly helped to stoke the fires of anti-government anger is right-wing media host Glenn Beck, who has a TV show on FOX News and a popular syndicated radio show. While other conservative media hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, routinely attack Obama and his administration, typically on partisan grounds, they have usually dismissed or refused to give a platform to the conspiracy theorists and anti-government extremists. This has not been the case with Glenn Beck. Beck and his guests have made a habit of demonizing President Obama and promoting conspiracy theories about his administration.

On a number of his TV and radio programs, Beck has even gone so far as to make comparisons between Hitler and Obama and to promote the idea that the president is dangerous.

...

These kinds of claims from Beck create an intersection between the mainstream and the extreme. They play an important role in drawing people further out of the mainstream, making them more receptive to the more extreme notions and conspiracy theories.

Previously:

Beck conspiracy theory: U.S. government to seize land through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back new currency

Glenn Beck Mainstreams Fringe Conspiracy Theories

Beck's latest conspiracy involves government, OnStar, and the "possibility" of "martial law"

Promoting newest conspiracy theory, Beck claims Drudge-hyped school kids video is "indoctrination," ties to Van Jones, NEA, Tides

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don't have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek's November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag. Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo -- "How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?" -- presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, "Maria," in which nuns fret about "how" to "solve a problem like Maria," a "girl" who "climbs trees" and whose "dress has a tear."

Now, this photograph may have been completely appropriate for the cover of the magazine for which the picture was apparently intended, Runners World. But Newsweek is supposed to be a serious newsmagazine, and the magazine is certainly not reporting on Palin's exercise habits.

Like her or not, Palin is a former governor and vice presidential candidate. She deserves the same respect every single one of her male counterparts receives when they are featured on the cover of the magazine. I must have missed the cover of Vice President Joe Biden in short shorts or of Mitt Romney in a bathing suit.

Newsweek's sexist treatment of Palin doesn't get any better inside its pages. The mag ran this photo to lead off its "Features" section, which focused on Palin:

Then, for no apparent reason, illustrating Christopher Hitchens' piece on "Palin's base appeal," Newsweek ran a picture of this disgusting Sarah Palin-as-a-slutty-schoolgirl doll:

What kind of message is the magazine trying to send here?

This is just the latest in a pattern of the media's sexist coverage of female politicians. With regard to Palin, Media Matters documented the sexist treatment both Palin and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received throughout the 2008 campaign. For instance, after McCain announced Palin as his VP, sexist commentary on cable news soon followed.

Some "raise[d] the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?" Others promoted the sexist notion that Biden will have to soften his tone and manner in a debate against Palin, since she is a woman. And despite repeatedly accusing liberals of engaging in sexist attacks on Palin, conservative males were no better.

In addition to drooling over the "panty line" he convinced himself he saw, radio host Chris Baker claimed Palin "shoulda had a little cleavage going" during the vice presidential debate in order to "[d]istract [Sen.] Joe Biden a little bit" and advised Palin: "[S]how your stuff, you know what I'm saying? Use all your assets." Discussing the "ugly skanks" in the Democratic Party who are jealous of Palin's "good look[s]," radio host Lee Rodgers offered: "I mean, my God -- you know, guys sitting around, talking, perhaps in a bar someplace -- they have a way of scoring them. ... I know, it's sexist. It's sexist. It's unfair, and all of that, but they will look over a female who comes in and just make an announcement: How many drinks it would take before you'd jump her bones, you know." According to Rodgers, that's what liberal women are "PO'd about. Sarah Palin's good-looking and they hate that."

Newsweek offers some interesting analysis of Palin and her appeal in its November 23 issue. Unfortunately, its sexist treatment of Palin's physical appearance distracts from any legitimate arguments the magazine and its contributors wish to make.

Last week after reading Scott Rasmussen's sky-falling-on-Obama polling piece in the WSJ, I asked, "Since when do serious, 'independent' pollsters write columns urging the president to "shift right"?, which is what Rasmussen did.

Now, in the wake of his recent posting, I have to ask, since when do serious, 'independent' pollster hawk partisan books in their survey write-ups?  

This week Rasmussen arrives with (surprise!) a pro-Palin poll just in time for her book release, and at the same time when other pollsters are finding a clear majority of Americans don't think Palin is qualified to be president.

Not only is Rasmussen's new survey a stroke of luck for Palin, but note this passage [emphasis added]:

Sixteen percent (16%) of all voters are following news about Palin’s book release very closely, and 20% say they are likely to read it. That latter figure includes 31% of Republican voters. (To order the book, Going Rogue, click HERE).

Huh? Pollster Rasmussen is now pointing people to Amazon to buy a partisan politician's new book? I'm guessing Gallup does not do that.

Appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos over the weekend, Ifill suggested women voters are intrigued by Palin's tale: "You cannot underestimate the degree that women will be drawn to her story."

Actually, you can underestimate it. Women voters are kinda, sorta turned off by Palin's story [emphasis added]:

Among women, who, theoretically, should form the base of Palin's support, nearly four in ten (39 percent) have a strongly unfavorable impression of her while just 20 percent were strongly favorable. Overall 39 percent of women had a favorable impression of Palin while 57 percent had an unfavorable one.

(h/t Eschaton)

The Nation's Ari Melber notes that Yuval Levin, formerly an aide in George W. Bush's domestic policy shop, is Newsweek's editor of national affairs, in which position he has written that liberals must "pull back to the center--or suffer the consequences."  And warned of "Obama fatigue."  And suggested the stimulus package passed earlier this year should have contained a "meaningful tax-cut component." (Melber notes that in fact the stimulus contained $280 billion in tax cuts, which seems pretty meaningful to me.)And in June, Levin co-wrote a column with Bill Kristol, declaring "ObamaCare is wrong. It should and can be defeated."

In March, a piece Levin wrote for Newsweek identified him as a "Bush veteran."  But more his more recent bylines have described him simply as "editor of National Affairs and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center," so Melber asked Newsweek why Levin's partisan background is no longer disclosed.  Here's the response he got from a Newsweek spokesperson:

Levin's previous article for Newsweek involved the issue of bioethics, his primary focus while at the White House. He disclosed his prior position in the body of that piece. His most recent article was not related to that topic. We believe our readers are aware of Mr. Levin's background, and are able to discern a reported news article from argument, which Levin's recent piece was. (Emphasis added.)

This is absolute nonsense.  There isn't one person in a hundred who knows Yuval Levin worked in the Bush White House.  Is there even one person in a thousand?  In ten thousand?  And how many know he co-authors attacks on "ObamaCare" with Bill Kristol and contributes to National Review Online?

Newsweek's apparent belief that because they disclosed Levin's background once, long ago, all of their readers have committed his resume to memory reminded me of Anne Applebaum's recent defense of her failure to disclose the fact that her husband is an official in the Polish government who was lobbying for leniency for Roman Polanski while she was writing in support of the same.

Applebaum, a columnist for Newsweek's sibling publication, the Washington Post, wrote: "For the record, I will note that I mentioned my husband's job in a column as recently as last week, and that when he first entered the Polish government three years ago I wrote a column about that too. I have to assume that the bloggers who have leapt upon this as some kind of secret revelation are simply unfamiliar with my writing."

As I explained at the time:

This is nonsense.  If a conflict exists, it isn't sufficient to disclose it once.  It must be disclosed every time it is relevant.  Applebaum seems to assume that Washington Post readers make a mental catalogue of every Post reporter and columnist, their relationships, and their conflicts of interest.  That anyone who ever reads anything she writes will take it upon themselves to keep a running tally of her conflicts, so she need disclose them only once.  That, obviously, is not going to happen.  And it displays a stunning arrogance -- she thinks everyone who reads her column cares enough about her to know where her husband works.  

Finally, she's misstating the nature of what she mocks as the "secret revelation." The criticism wasn't that her husband is an employee of the Polish government.  Nobody cares about that.  It's that her husband is a Polish government official who is currently lobbying for the very thing Applebaum is arguing in favor of.  Surely she understands the difference?

(For the record, Applebaum had another, much better, defense of her failure to disclose her husband's lobbying for Polanski: she says she didn't know he was doing it.)

And then there's Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post media critic with the lucrative side-job hosting a television show for CNN.  He's promised to disclose his financial relationship with CNN every time he writes about the cable news giant -- but he doesn't do so. Not even close.

What Kurtz, Levin, and Applebaum have in common -- besides a corporate parent -- is the apparent belief that as long as they disclose potential conflicts of interests once, anyone who ever reads anything they write will be completely aware of their background.  That is obviously foolish -- not to mention arrogant.  This may be hard for Washington Post Company journalists to believe, but most readers have more important things to do than to memorize the life story of every reporter whose reporting they might encounter. 

Leave it to the right-wing blog machine to turn a candlelight vigil on the sidewalks outside Sen. Joe Lieberman's home into a torch-wielding mob of "leftist goons" "threatening" Lieberman and his family. "The radical left is now threatening Joe Lieberman and his family at his home for his stand against nationalized health care," writes Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft. The post features a picture of the protest, which Gateway Pundit has helpfully labeled "leftist goons." Of course, the crowd in the protest looks anything but "threatening" -- rather bored, actually -- but let's review the reporting on the protest.  Fortunately, Gateway Pundit provides us a recap from the "far left" Stamford Advocate:

Quietly holding candles, hundreds of clergymen, congregants and reform advocates lined the sidewalks outside Independent U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's Stamford home Sunday night in a show of support for universal health care.

Who hasn't felt threatened by a group of people "quietly holding candles"? Especially "clergymen" quietly holding candles"?

Gateway Pundit also links to video of the rally and states: "They weren't just praying. They were chanting outside his home."

Chanting? Really?

And in the coup de grace (of stupidity), Hoft writes: "Last night they brought candles... Tomorrow?"

Incense?

Potpourri?

From a November 17 TVNewser.com report by Gail Shister:

Lou Dobbs "would be delighted" to join Bill O'Reilly as a semi-regular contributor, Dobbs says.

Dobbs, who resigned from CNN on the air last week, was "surprised and very flattered" when O'Reilly made the offer on his Fox News show last night, Dobbs said in an interview today.

"Absolutely, I'm thinking about it," said Dobbs, on the fly after a "Today" show hit. "I have immense respect for Bill O'Reilly. He's an outstanding broadcaster."

Despite buzz that he will be the next hoss in Roger Ailes' stable, the partisan pontificator says he and his wife plan "to take a lot of time" mulling over numerous offers from "all forms of media and politics."

He won't discuss details, saying only that he feels "blessed and fortunate to have the choices that I do." His CNN contract, which was not set to expire until the end of 2011, does not include a non-compete clause.

Previously / Related:

Fox News' Geraldo Rips Dobbs, Says He 'Is Not Coming To Fox News'

Defending Fox News, Geraldo says "we don't have" Dobbs, "who has done more to slander Latinos in this country than anyone"

Media Matters has repeatedly shown that Fox News falls decisively short of being "fair and balanced," but instead is a 24/7 partisan organization -- or as Fox senior VP Bill Shine put it, the "voice of opposition" to the Obama White House.

That's why it was so gratifying to see that, although Fox personalities may still be in denial, others in the News Corp. family have seen the light.

No, really. Check out the News Corp.-owned New York Post's recent reporting on Lou Dobbs' departure from CNN:

November 16:

Klein long believed Dobbs was at odds with CNN's desire to position itself as an opinion-free, middle-of-the-road alternative to its cable news rivals -- conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC.

November 13:

CNN is pushing hard to position itself as a middle-of-the-road news source, between left-leaning MSNBC and conservative Fox News Channel.

Nice to know they've been paying attention.

Washington Post reporter Michael Shear explains his paper's wall-to-wall coverage of Sarah Palin's new book: 

Why do we spend so much time on Palin? And is it too much? Perhaps. There's a danger that we are overdoing it -- four stories in today's paper may have reached that point. On the other hand, there seems to be an insatiable demand from our audience -- liberals and conservatives -- and at the end of the day we have to, and should, respond to that.

Really?  There's an "insatiable demand" from Washington Post readers for coverage of Sarah Palin's book?  How does the Post know this?  The book just came out -- has the paper's switchboard been flooded with demands that for all-Going-Rogue, all the time?  Are Post editors getting angry emails insisting that three articles in one day's paper just won't do -- a fourth is absolutely necessary, though still not sufficient?

I doubt that very much.

I don't mean to single Shear out here.  You see this kind of thing all the time -- reporters justifying something they can't justify on the merits by asserting public demand they can't (or won't) quantify.  

Like when Howard Kurtz defended obsessive cable news coverage of a balloon that was not carrying a little boy by writing "The ratings, forgive me, must have soared."  Must have?  Well ... Did they?  Or when Politico's Mike Allen asserted that "Fox executives are relishing" their recent fight with the White House because "ratings at Fox are through the roof" -- without actually providing the ratings to back up that claim.  As Eric Boehlert has explained in detail, Fox's ratings spike is a myth.

It's bad enough when journalists suggest that the news media should simply report what the public to see.  That isn't journalism -- and if we go too far down that road, it won't be long before NBC Nightly News consists of nothing more than cat videos and B-list celebrity sex tapes.  But it's even more frustrating when they make decisions about what to cover based on baseless assumptions about what the public wants.

And it's how you get a decades-long dumbing-down of the news based on assumptions about viewer preferences that may be completely wrong: 

For years, local news producers have led their stations in a race to the bottom, driven by the prevailing belief that "eyeball grabbers" and "soft news" are the only hope for local news in an era of declining TV audiences.

But a 2004 study* argues that they might want to rethink their approach. In "The Local News Story: Is Quality a Choice?" political science professors Todd L. Belt and Marion Just conclude that sensationalistic news does not lead to sensational ratings.

Belt, assistant professor at the University of Hawai'i, Hilo, and Just, a professor at Wellesley College and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, argue that the prevailing worldview in the nation's newsrooms has it all backward: Good, solid journalism, not tawdry, tabloid-style content, keeps viewers tuned to their TVs.

...

What Belt and Just found certainly goes against industry conventional wisdom.

"The data show quality journalism produces commercial success," they write. Newscasts that posted high scores on the quality index nabbed higher ratings than their mediocre counterparts. The finding held true for both the early and late evening news time slots. It also held for lead stories, suggesting that the old TV news mantra - "If it bleeds, it leads" - might be in need of revision.

Although local news viewership as a whole fell during the period covered by the study - 1998 to 2002 - the data nonetheless show that those stations that produced high-quality newscasts did better in hanging on to their audience.

He already served time as Laura Bush's flak, so maybe GOP lapdog Malcolm is eying a return to the Republican payroll. His crush on Palin is quite obvious this week, although Malcolm's reading comprehension skills seem suspect as ever.

Get a load of this headline:

Going berserk over 'Going Rogue;' Democrats' reaction to Sarah Palin book and publicity

According to Malcolm's astute reading of the political landscape, it's Democrats who are going "berserk" over Palin's book. And how many "Democrats" does Malcolm quote in his piece? Yeah, that'd be zero because, as everyone else but Malcolm realizes, Democrats are pretty much sitting the Palin thing out this week and gleefully watching as Palin pits Republicans vs. Republicans as they conduct another bloody round of the 2008 Blame Game.

Always desperate for a partisan spin, Malcolm, as is his custom, just makes stuff up and claims Democrats are going "berserk" over Palin's book. But oops, Malcolm doesn't actually quote a single Democrat to prove his point.

Malcolm and Palin could make a perfect pair.

UPDATED: What's Malcolm's proof that (nameless) Democrats are going "berserk"? The fact that the DNC has sent out some emails containing links to Palin-related news stories. Oh brother. This is lame even by Malcolm standards.

From The Fox Nation, accessed on November 17:

Previously:

Limbaugh joins attack of Obama's bow: "Obama envies these monarchs" and "wants to be bowed to someday"

Echoing a right-wing blog, Doocy repeatedly claimed Obama's bow was unprecedented

On Fox & Friends, Rove decides that Obama's bow was "inappropriate" and evidence of a "world-wide apology tour"

Discussing "bow-gate," Fox & Friends wonders if it's "a reflexive thing" for Obama to apologize to world leaders

In an email to supporters, the Tea Party Express praised "some of the great television news coverage this effort has received.  Media coverage is an important aspect of the Tea Party Express tours - it's all about getting our message out to millions of Americans - to inform them that there is an active political resistance against the socialist agenda of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid." 

The Tea Party Express' examples of "great television news coverage" included links to numerous segments on Fox News and CNN about their efforts. 

Previously:

"All aboard":  Fox News promotes "Bigger & Better!" Tea Party Express II with birther Williams

Tea Party Express again highlights Fox News coverage to raise money

Fox News "hops" aboard Tea Party Express with rampant promotions, live coverage

Fox News' embedded reporter Jenkins cheerleads for anti-Dem Tea Party Express

Fox's Briggs:  You might call reporter Griff Jenkins "a tea party groupie"

AC 360 hosts tea partier, birther, radio host Mark Williams -- despite CNN chief Klein's reported memo to "avoid booking" radio hosts