Yahoo! News writer Brett Michael Dykes wrote:
Yet another controversy appears to be brewing around Fox News host Glenn Beck. Some are accusing him of a blatant conflict of interest concerning his frequent on-air promotion of an investment sold by one of his main advertisers: Gold.
For some time Beck critics have cried foul over his relationship with Goldline International, a precious metalsvendor that features the TV and radio host's endorsement prominently on their website. Critics charge that Beck is guilty of misleading his audience by often advising them to purchase gold in advance of the potential collapse of the value of the dollar on the world currency market, without disclosing that he is in fact a "paid spokesman" for Goldline. Beck's on-air promotion of gold, which includes advising viewers to construct "fruit cellars" and to rely on a "three G system" of "God, Gold, and Guns" in the event of America's collapse, dates back to his time as a host for CNN Headline News.
Dykes also wrote:
Beck's promotion of gold presents a potential problem for Fox News, which strictly prohibits on-air personalities from making paid product endorsements. Whencontacted by Daily Finance for a comment on the matter, Fox News senior vice-president for development Joel Cheatwood said the network "makes an exception for its commentators who are also radio hosts," adding that they knew upfront that hiring Beck came with the understanding that he was also a radio host and that they "had to be accepting of certain elements of that." Nevertheless, a Fox spokeswoman said that the company is addressing the matter with Beck's agent, George Hiltzik.
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 December 8 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy, look what the LA Times' Andrew Malcolm did again.
Malcolm is once again trying to compare President Obama's approval ratings with Sarah Palin's popularity ratings - despite being called out on this blog for doing that just two weeks ago - to claim there is only a 1-point gap in their favorability ratings.
"Shocker polls: That Sarah Palin-Barack Obama gap melts to 1 point" reads Malcolm's headline.
Problem is, it's not true.
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy, look what the pollsters just brought in.
A pair of new surveys revealing that President Obama is still declining and has hit a new low in job approval among Americans just 56 weeks after they elected him with a decided margin.
And -- wait for it -- Republican Sarah Palin is successfully selling a whole lot more than books out there on the road. Even among those not lining up in 10-degree weather to catch a glimpse of pretty much the only political celebrity the GOP has these days.
Obama's new Gallup Poll job approval number is 47%. Last month it was 53%.
Regular Ticket readers will recall how in this space in late November we pointed out that Obama's closely watched job approval slide was coinciding with Palin's little-noticed rise in favorability. And it appeared they might cross somewhere in the 40s.
Well, ex-Sen. Obama, meet ex-Gov. Palin.
The new CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows Palin now at 46% favorable, just one point below her fellow basketball fan.
Malcolm is comparing Obama's Gallup approval number with Palin's CNN favorability rating.
In other words, Malcolm's picking more cherries than Cedric Ceballos.
In fact, CNN hasn't asked about Obama's favorability since October 16-18, but at that point, it was at 60%.
Nor has Gallup asked about Palin's favorability since October 1-4, but at that point, it was at 40%.
So we know as much as we did two weeks ago.
Which is that Palin is nowhere near as popular as Obama - and Andrew Malcolm is still a hack.
Wonkette and CJR do the honors this time around.
We don't really know what to make of this David Carr column about the White House going overboard with the YouTubes and Flickrs and Facebooks and iTunes and, probably, Twitters and Wii. Yes, it's a bit much, sometimes, even though we require a steady stream of Obamaporn to feed the carnal-political hope-desires of you, our loyal reader.
But it's impossible to look at the Obama Presidency's "social media" bullshit in a bubble. EVERYBODY does this stuff, now, all the time, and Sarah Palin is only the most visible "opposition" example. Does she even exist, outside of Facebook?
And from CJR:
It's hard to tell whether the greatest irony of the "Is Obama Overexposed?" question is that it's asked, straight-faced, by the same media who perpetrate the alleged overexposure—or that it's asked by the same media who, in the next breath, might accuse Obama of not being transparent enough about his messaging—or that it is, as a topic, itself flagrantly overexposed. Regardless, "IOO?" is a cyclical, back-pocket, evergreen-in-a-moldy-kind-of-way question that pops up from its dormant depths every once in a while, like so many gophers or specialty sandwiches or raging cases of athlete's foot.
Amen and amen.
It sure looks that way, argues David Fiderer at Huffington Post. By relentless hyping the so-called "Climate-gate" story, which is built around stolen emails that were obtained by hackers, as well as calling out other news organizations for not jumping on the story, Fiderer suggests Fox News is guilty of legitimizing an obvious act of cyber-terrorism.
George Will, Lou Dobbs and Newt Gingrich have all lent their support to this broad-based campaign effort by Fox News to legitimize the work of criminals who lurk in the shadows. The criminals, who remain unidentified and still at large, stole confidential e-mails, selectively edited them, and disseminated them to promote the crackpot belief that the scientific case for global warming is not rock solid.
When The Washington Times announced it would be laying off 40 percent of the staff, reports of the move stated that the paper desired to focus on its "core strengths," which included "cultural coverage based on traditional values." Apparently, that includes the continuity of the paper's relentless anti-gay crusade.
Readers of this site are certainly familiar with The Washington Times' history of anti-gay rhetoric. This is, after all, a paper that repeatedly warned of a gay "assault upon traditional norms and values" and whose former editor-in-chief defended the ban on gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military by arguing that it prevents violence against "a randy gay caballero" who "starts making eyes at a straight." They use scare quotes around "partners" and gay "marriage," a practice that was reportedly banned by former editor John Solomon, but was quickly reinstated upon his departure from the paper.
Most recently, The Washington Times has been waging an anti-gay war on Department of Education official Kevin Jennings, an openly gay former educator who has worked tirelessly to increase awareness of gay and lesbian issues in the education system. A gay man responsible for education policy focused on keeping kids safe? Obviously, the Times could not let this stand. So, they've invested incredible interest and editorial page space to smearing Jennings as an "extremist" who promoted a "bizarre sexual agenda" and supports "homosexual pedophiles" who prey on children.
In its most recent Jennings attack, The Washington Times dubbed Jennings "Obama's buggery czar," attempted to link him to NAMBLA, and accused Jennings of promoting relationships between children and "homosexual pedophiles." Media Matters has extensively documented the lengths to which the paper has gone to distort Jennings' past in what appears to be a less-than-subtle attempt to play on small-minded fears that gay men and women prey on children that they could then recruit to their homosexual lifestyle. And, despite the massive shake-ups at the flailing paper, its obsessive focus on Jennings remains undeterred. I, for one, am not surprised that one of the Times' "core strengths" on which the paper will focus is gay bashing.
How would, say, Sean Hannity react if Al Gore's Current TV referred to the World Council on Churches as a "circus sideshow"?
And who are these "critics," anyway? One is "Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank."
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has enjoyed funding from, among others, Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Texaco, General Motors, Richard Mellon Scaife's foundations, and the Koch family foundations (Koch Industries is the nation's largest privately-held energy company and a record-setting polluter. Oh, and they use the fortune the accumulated in part by stealing oil from US taxpayers and Indian lands to provide millions of dollars in funding for the conservative movement.)
Later, Fox quotes another "critic" -- "Roger Bate, the Legatum Fellow in Global Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute." Like CEI, AEI has taken a flood of energy company money, including nearly $2 million from Exxon since 2001.
Naturally, Fox forgot to mention that AEI and CEI might not exist but for the generous funding of some of the nation's biggest polluters.
This is ironic. It turns out the right-wing Noise Machine's rhetoric about global warming (i.e. that it's a hoax and those who embrace it are "terrorists" and "Stalinists") would likely find lots of followers in China, according to a new Gallup poll.
The worldwide survey set out to determine in which of the countries responsible for the most of the world's greenhouse emissions do people view global warming as "serious threat." And what do you know, people in China agree with Beck and Limbaugh; it's not a serious threat at all! Only 21 percent of Chinese think global warming is a big deal.
According to Gallup, American right-wing claims about global warming would also find a following in Russia and India, where skeptics outnumber the believers.
Washington Post reporter Ed O'Keefe defends the inclusion of two Arkansas Senators in the so-called "Gang of 10" health care negotiations:
Washington, D.C.: Is it just me, or is Arkansas a bit overrepresented in the "Gang of 10"?
Ed O'Keefe: It's a moderate state with moderate lawmakers, so it makes sense to me!
Arkansas is a "moderate state"? Really?
Let's use the 2008 presidential election returns as a proxy, shall we?
Nationally, Barack Obama won about 53 percent of the vote, to John McCain's 46 percent.
In Arkansas, Obama won 39 percent to McCain's 59 percent. Wow, that sure looks like Arkansas was pretty far out of the mainstream, doesn't it?
Let's compare that to a few other states, shall we? In California, Obama took 61 percent of the vote to McCain's 37 percent. In New York, Obama won 63 percent to McCain's 36 percent. And in Massachusetts, Obama won 62 percent to McCain's 36 percent. All of those totals are closer to the national totals than Arkansas' results are. Now: How often do you see reporters refer to California, New York and Massachusetts as "moderate states"? Not very often.
So what states did deviate from the national results by roughly the same amount as Arkansas? In Alabama, Obama won 39 percent of the vote to McCain's 60 percent. In Mississippi, Obama won 43 percent and McCain 56 percent. So Arkansas was more anti-Obama than Mississippi, and about the same as Alabama.
Are Alabama and Mississippi your idea of "moderate" states?