From a February 12 post on Beck's Twitter feed:
At least 80 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 for white people." Here are his February 12 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
From The Fox Nation, accessed February 11:
The Republican National Committee is sending out a fundraising e-mail that urges donors to send GOP Valentine's E-Cards to loved ones, with online contributions of anywhere from $10 to $100.
Donors can choose from 18 different Valentine's cards that the RNC has created, including one that features Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claiming they didn't craft the card behind closed doors, as they did with their "government-run health care experiment."
Another has President Obama claiming he's saved or created millions of Valentine's, "just like his party has claimed that the wasteful, pork-filled stimulus bill has created or saved thousands, 1.5 million or 2 million jobs depending on which Obama administration official you ask."
At Media Matters' we've repeatedly pointed out the media's inability to consistently identify the conflicts of interest or note-worthy connections of contributors and guests on various cable news outlets as well as those quoted in major newspapers as experts. Years' worth of examples of past Media Matters research on the subject can be found at the end of this post.
The Nation's Sebastian Jones has an incredible piece out this week detailing the results of a four month investigation which found that, "[s]ince 2007 at least seventy-five registered lobbyists, public relations representatives and corporate officials -- people paid by companies and trade groups to manage their public image and promote their financial and political interests -- have appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Network with no disclosure of the corporate interests that had paid them."
From Jones' report:
President Obama spent most of December 4 touring Allentown, Pennsylvania, meeting with local workers and discussing the economic crisis. A few hours later, the state's former governor, Tom Ridge, was on MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews, offering up his own recovery plan. There were "modest things" the White House might try, like cutting taxes or opening up credit for small businesses, but the real answer was for the president to "take his green agenda and blow it out of the box." The first step, Ridge explained, was to "create nuclear power plants." Combined with some waste coal and natural gas extraction, you would have an "innovation setter" that would "create jobs, create exports."
As Ridge counseled the administration to "put that package together," he sure seemed like an objective commentator. But what viewers weren't told was that since 2005, Ridge has pocketed $530,659 in executive compensation for serving on the board of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power company. As of March 2009, he also held an estimated $248,299 in Exelon stock, according to SEC filings.
Moments earlier, retired general and "NBC Military Analyst" Barry McCaffrey told viewers that the war in Afghanistan would require an additional "three- to ten-year effort" and "a lot of money." Unmentioned was the fact that DynCorp paid McCaffrey $182,309 in 2009 alone. The government had just granted DynCorp a five-year deal worth an estimated $5.9 billion to aid American forces in Afghanistan. The first year is locked in at $644 million, but the additional four options are subject to renewal, contingent on military needs and political realities.
In a single hour, two men with blatant, undisclosed conflicts of interest had appeared on MSNBC. The question is, was this an isolated oversight or business as usual? Evidence points to the latter. In 2003 The Nation exposed McCaffrey's financial ties to military contractors he had promoted on-air on several cable networks; in 2008 David Barstow wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning series for the New York Times about the Pentagon's use of former military officers--many lobbying or consulting for military contractors--to get their talking points on television in exchange for access to decision-makers; and in 2009 bloggers uncovered how ex-Newsweek writer Richard Wolffe had guest-hosted Countdown With Keith Olbermann while working at a large PR firm specializing in "strategies for managing corporate reputation."
Based on Jones' report, it looks like the problem is far more pervasive than previously known. It makes one wonder if Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, who has often failed to disclose his own conflicts of interest, will discuss the story on his weekend broadcast of Reliable Sources on CNN.
Be sure to check out Jones' expose in its entirety. It's well worth a read.
A while back, I expressed some entirely warranted exasperation that conservatives like the bias sleuths at NewsBusters continually use isolated weather events, like snowstorms in winter, as evidence that global warming is bunk. At the time, I surmised that the problem was that certain conservatives are "too abysmally thick to grasp even the basic idea of latitude."
Turns out I was being too generous.
NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein went after the New York Times this morning for reporting of the record snowfalls on the east coast:
But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms, because warmer air carries more moisture.
Finkelstein was incredulous at the bit about warmer air carrying more moisture:
So more snow fell from Philly to DC because the temperatures were warmer than normal during the blizzards? That got me wondering: just what were the temperatures in DC on the snow days, and how do they compare to the norm? And guess what?
Bottom line: the temperature was colder than average on every one of the snow days. On average the snow days were about eight degrees colder than normal.
To spin these facts as proof that the blizzards are evidence of global warming because "warm air holds more moisture" is bunk.
This is so dumb it's actually frightening, so I'll try to explain it in a way that even a NewsBuster can understand.
Assume for the moment that there are basically two types of air -- warmer air, and colder air. Warmer air tends to have higher moisture content, as the New York Times reported. When a mass of warmer, wetter air meets a mass of colder, drier air, the warmer air is typically pushed up over the cold air, where it condenses, forming precipitation (that's a fancy science word for rain, snow, sleet, etc.). Once that precipitation gets heavy enough, it falls, and if the colder air beneath it -- the air that determines the temperature at the surface -- is below freezing, it falls as snow. It's basic meteorology, and it's all right here for your perusal.
The scientist cited in the Times did not say that more snow fell "because the temperatures were warmer than normal during the blizzards." He said that the warmer air that condensed to form the precipitation contained more moisture than normal -- hence, more snow. This was obvious to anyone who had paid attention in fourth-grade science.
But, of course, Finkelstein's inept turn as weatherman was enthusiastically endorsed by Rush Limbaugh and Finkelstein's colleague Noel Sheppard, whose serial climate change idiocy is becoming tiresome.
If conservatives want us to believe they know better than the climatologists, they should start by at least getting temperature down pat.
As reported on the New York Times' website on Wednesday (and in print Thursday), "Two former employees of Blackwater Worldwide have accused the private security company of defrauding the government for years by filing bogus receipts, double billing for the same services and charging government agencies for strippers and prostitutes, according to court documents unsealed this week."
It seemed to be a story tailor-made for Glenn Beck. Last year, during and following the ACORN "scandal" that Beck had worked to turn into a national story, he had railed again and again against the corruption choking Washington, D.C.
Beck's anger was also predicated on the nature of the supposed crimes being committed: specifically, ACORN's theoretical willingness to support prostitution.
And so, it was intriguing to watch his reaction to the latest accusations facing Blackwater, which is embroiled in numerous legal investigations. Beck's Thursday Fox News broadcast included seven mentions of the word "socialist" or "socialism" and five mentions of "communist" or "communists." He even mentioned "fascism," "Hitler," and "Van Jones" once each.
But Blackwater? Beck didn't mention it once.
For the host, such obvious and overt hypocrisy is nothing new. Last September, Media Matters set out to establish if there was any consistency to his professed concern with "corruption" in Washington. Our researchers reviewed the transcripts of every episode of his television programs, beginning with his May 2006 debut on CNN Headline News and ending on September 18, 2009. During the period, several corruption scandals broke involving major U.S. military contractors Blackwater, KBR, and Halliburton, as well as Republican lobbyists and office-holders, such as Jack Abramoff and Bob Ney.
The results were striking: During the time period studied, Beck's programs were approximately 50 times more likely to reference ACORN than any of the military contractors and approximately 149 times more likely to discuss ACORN than either Abramoff or Ney. This, despite the fact that Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater received tens of billions of dollars in military contracts. (By comparison, ACORN has received an estimated $53 million in federal funding over the past 15 years, which is an average of $3.5 million per year.) Furthermore, KBR was even connected to the fatal electrocutions of 13 U.S. service members between the start of the Iraq war and July 2008 due to faulty electrical work that the company performed.
In case there was any doubt about his priorities, Beck answered them just two days after our report came out. On September 25, 2009, he dismissed the idea that he was disproportionately focused on ACORN. After playing a clip of Roland Burris defending the organization and criticizing Blackwater, Beck said, "I don't think I can take the Blackwater thing anymore. I can't take any of it...What about ACORN?"
I'm not sure it's physically possible for The Note push any harder it's beloved Obama's-presidency-is-teetering-on-collapse storyline that it's been hyping since, like, September. But take a look at today's rather hysterical lede and it sure looks like The Note is trying [emphasis added]:
So it was that, in a single week in President Obama's second February in office, everything basically broke down, or at least froze in place.
Tracking a chaotic couple of hours... A former president was hospitalized for a heart procedure... The Kennedy political dynasty moved toward a quiet close...
A blizzard sparked a climate debate... Health care reform waited out another week... Glimmers of bipartisanship were promptly extinguished in the Senate... And we filled our snow-stuffed days with visions of Sarah Palin and David Paterson and John Edwards...
This is Washington at its most dysfunctional -- leaving aside the monstrous snow piles cutting down on the parking spots.
Note the very un-subtle way ABC News tries to connect all those disconnected events and to drop them at the feet of Obama; to make them--and the week-- seem like they're a reflection on Obama's administration.
But look at the highlights on that grocery list again: Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin, John Edwards, David Paterson, Patrick Kennedy and a blizzard. What does Obama or his adminstration have to do with any of those things?
Nothing, of course.
Newsbusters asks readers what they see as the "central theme" of the tea party movement -- and, in doing so, defines their "first principles":
So, "guns" are a "first principle" over at Newsbusters, but limited government and freedom, among other things, are not. Good to know.
Last month we highlighted the pointless nature of one-sided generic polls for elections that don't actually take place for more than 30 months. But this week, Gallup (headline trolling?) put out a new one that generated a lot of Politico/Drudge-fueled buzz. Why? because Obama only leads his "nameless" Republican opponent by a couple points. And that's news.
But is that really so shocking to give voters a choice between a well-known politician whom they may or may not like, and pit him against a nameless (i.e. flawless?) candidate? Wouldn't it be more revealing if polling firms like Gallup inserted the names of actual Republicans and then asked who'd they prefer if running against Obama?
That's what Fox News recently did. It inserted the names of real Republicans (flaws and all) and asked voters who'd they prefer. Look what happened when Fox News put in the names "Mitt Romney," and "Sarah Palin," and "Newt Gingrich" and asked voters to pick between Obama and them.
As I noted last month, according to the Fox News survey, Obama would waltz to re-election against Romney, sail to a second term against Palin, and probably wouldn't even have to campaign against Gingrich.
UPDATED: The truly odd part of the Gallup survey is that the pollsters specifically asked Republican respondents who''d they like to see as the GOP nominee. (i..e Romney, Palin, McCain, etc.) So Gallup has a cheat sheet handy. If it's really interested in taking a snapshot of the electorate, Gallup should use that list to ask voters who they'd prefer against Obama using the names of real Republicans.
UPDATED: I honestly don't know the answer to this and haven't been able to find it yet, but I'd sure be interested to find out if Gallup was polling George. W. Bush's re-election bid 30-plus months out via generic, nameless match-ups. Or Bill Clinton's. Or if this a new polling strategy has been adopted specifically for Obama. It kind of feels that way.