Honestly, is there anything in more annoying than a millionaire, celebrity journalist like Chris Wallace wallowing in self-pity?
By now, everyone knows that on Sunday, Obama will make the rounds on the morning news shows but that Fox News Sunday, hosted by Wallace, will be left out. The insult is obvious and poor Chris Wallace is not handling it well. He's alternating between feeling sorry himself and taking every opportunity to lash out wildly at the administration. (Gee, think the WH hit a nerve w/ its Wallace snub?)
Here's the funny part, though. During one pity party session, a Fox News host claimed Obama was skipping out on "the highly-rated Fox News Sunday."
Here we go with more alternate universe stuff from the GOP Noise Machine. Because if by "highly rated" Fox meant dead last, than yeah, it's an accurate description. The facts: Wallace hosts, and has hosted for years, the perennial Sunday morning news show loser. Fox News Sunday pretty much gets lapped by the rest of network field. It's not even close. And since Wallace became host during Bush's first term, the ratings haven't really budged an inch. The show's in dead last, where it has remained pretty much since its inception.
So instead of feeling sorry for himself this weekend, we'll offer up this novel advice to Wallace: Get more viewers! Maybe if your show wasn't a ratings doormat (like, for a decade running), Obama would make time for you. But why should the White House make an effort to include Fox when Wallace's show at times barely draws one million viewers?
The newspaper owes the news outlets an apology for running the obviously false and inflammatory ad purchased by Fox News; the full-page ad that claimed all the news channel's "missed" the story of the 9/12 protest. Question: Is the Post so desperate for ad revenues that it will gladly ignore its own advertising standards? Because that's so clearly what the newspaper did on Friday.
It didn't take a detective on the Post's sales team to realize the Fox News ad was false. How could the nets and Fox News' cable competitors have "missed" the story of the march if they all covered it throughout the day?
Here's the Post's dreadful attempt to defend cashing Fox News' check [emphasis added]:
[The Post] will not reject an advertisement based on its content or sponsor, unless the ad is illegal, false, advocates illegal actions, or is not in keeping with standards of taste. When we do not see anything in a particular ad that is contrary to these standards, we will not place limits on speech or content. That was our review and judgment in this case."
Pressed about the fact that the Fox News ad's central claim was false, a Post flak insisted that because it was Fox News' opinion that competitors "missed" the story, that made it okay.
So if the New York Times bought a full-page ad in USA Today ridiculing the Post for having "missed" a story that the Post had clearly covered, the Post would have no problem with that?
In this battle of media giants, ABC was dead-on when it's spokeswoman declared that the Post had exercised "zero due diligence" in trying to figure out if the Fox News ad was false.
"[the Post] should have been rejected according to your professed standards. Now the Post should make it right by apologizing quickly and recognizing that it made a grave error that tarnishes the reputation of five other news organizations."
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 18 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
We just received the following behind the scenes footage from an anonymous tipster showing what appears to be a Fox News producer encouraging a crowd to scream and holler during a "report" by Fox News' Griff Jenkins at the 9/12 protest:
Here's how it looked on Fox News:
We would expect that type of behavior from a producer of, say, a daytime talk show with a live studio audience like Oprah or Maury or Jerry, but from a cable news producer? Really?
I guess it wasn't enough for Fox News to promote the hell out of Glenn Beck's 9/12 death march – they also needed to incite the crowd – you know, get them nice and pumped up so they'd looked good for the cameras.
Fair & Balanced? More like Fake & Staged.
From the September 18 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
Fox News ran a full page ad today in the Washington Post, NY Post, and Wall Street Journal touting their coverage of the Tea Party protest.
Of course as Media Matters has documented, Fox essentially acted as a sponsor of the protest. But even worse, Fox claims in the ad that their competitors (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) didn't cover the demonstration. But as TVNewser reports, they did.
NBC News had crews on the mall and correspondent Tom Costello reported live for NBC Nightly News Saturday. A Nightly News spokesperson tells TVNewser, "and more than 5.2 million viewers watched our coverage." It was Weekend Nightly's best Total Viewer delivery since April.
ABC News was there too with reports for Good Morning America Saturday and Sunday. Kate Snow interviewed GOP Sen. Jim DeMint who was a speaker at the rally. ABCNews.com even had to correct a report about the number of attendees which was erroneously attributed to the network. Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks, the organizer of the event, made that claim. He would later say, "I regret misrepresenting the network as [ABC's] coverage that day was fair and honest." And from NoonET Saturday to NoonET Sunday, ABC News Radio referenced the rally in 69 separate newscasts.
And CBS News was there -- with multiple crews -- TV and radio. Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes reported it as the lead story on Saturday's CBS Evening News. CBS Radio News provided hourly reports throughout the day and CBSNews.com reported the story as the rotating lead all day, using Cordes' video before it appeared in her Evening News story.
CNN was there as well, their Radio correspondent even got up close with the crowds.
If Fox can't tell the truth about a simple issue like this...
This is sort of odd. CNN.com posted a stand-alone 'news' article regarding the fact that failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney was going to be in nation's capital Saturday and Sunday--get this!--to raise money and give some speeches.
Romney plans busy weekend in Washington area
Glenn Beck fashions himself a proud and vocal defender of the Constitution, and yesterday, his self-appointed duties led him to attack President Obama's understanding of and commitment to that very document.
Beck began by presenting a montage of the Founding Fathers, and then cut to Obama's inauguration. After showing the president taking the oath of office, Beck played audio taken from a September 2001 radio interview Obama conducted with the public radio station WBEZ in Chicago. (The relevant portion of the discussion, if you would like to hear it, is in the "Slavery and the Constitution" clip on the page linked to above, 45 minutes and 20 seconds in.)
Played over the obligatory scary music, here is what Beck excerpted from the interview:
OBAMA: The original Constitution  I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture -- the colonial culture nascent at that time.  I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture  and that the framers had that same blind spot.  It also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
Now compare that with what Obama actually said:
HOST: Barack Obama, what are your thoughts on the Declaration and Constitution?
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think it's a remarkable document. I think --
HOST: Which one?
OBAMA: The original Constitution, as well as -- as well as the Civil War amendments, but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture -- the colonial culture nascent at that time.
African-Americans were not -- first of all, they weren't African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers. I think that, as [program co-panelist] Richard [John] said, it was a nagging problem in the same way that, these days, we might think of environmental issues or some other problem that, where you have to balance, you know, cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.
And, in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
What did Beck leave out? For one, he ignored the fact that Obama twice referred to the Constitution as "remarkable." More important, Beck eliminated Obama's highly targeted explanation of what he felt was the Constitution's imperfection: that "African-Americans were not ... considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers."
Such a reality is undeniable. The original version of the Constitution listed slaves as three-fifths of a human being for purposes of appointing representation (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3); prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 and Article V); and required all states to return fugitive slaves to wherever they had fled from (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). It's worth noting that Condoleezza Rice made the same point Obama did when she delivered the commencement address at Boston College in 2006, saying, "We have thrived despite the fact that when the Founding Fathers said, 'We, the people,' they didn't mean me."
Does Beck really believe that such original elements of the Constitution should not be considered imperfections -- imperfections that were indeed the product of a cultural "blind spot" shared by the 18th century individuals who authored it?
Even if he doesn't, the intent of a segment such as this one is still clear. Beck isn't interested in seriously examining the Constitution, nor does he care to honestly reflect on race in America. Instead, he wants to portray Obama as a man who harbors a generalized and racially motivated resentment toward the Founding Fathers and the document they authored -- exactly the kind of person who would seek to exact race-based justice through reparations, which Beck has already declared to be at the heart of Obama's entire agenda.
This isn't the first time that conservatives have deliberately distorted this interview to make the exact same point. Rush Limbaugh did so last October, and the RNC did it again in May. It's the sort of willfully ignorant, historically inaccurate, deliberately deceptive, and racially provocative argument that has become common in the modern conservative movement. And it shows how untrustworthy individuals like Beck truly are.