Howard Kurtz, the nation's most prominent media critic, rebukes a reader for being "a little outdated" in mentioning the Washington Times' tendency to use scare-quotes when writing about gay marriage:
re: "The Times says it will still do straight journalism": Does the Washington Times still put quotes around the word "marriage" when referring to legally binding marriages between members of the same sex? Because, if so, it never practiced "straight journalism."
Howard Kurtz: You're a little outdated. When John Solomon was editor, he banned some of those loaded phrases, such as homosexual marriage instead of gay marriage. Of course, he quit during the big management shakeup six weeks ago, and no replacement has been named. The managing editors, including Jeff Birnbaum, who like Solomon came from The Post, have also stepped down. So it remains to be seen who will be leading the paper.
But Howard Kurtz, the nation's most prominent media critic, is the one who is a little out-dated. Despite Solomon's edict, the Times has continued to use scare quotes, as Media Matters has documented.
Fox has a bit of a problem. James Cameron's movie Avatar is a story about aliens from planet Pandora who embark in an "epic battle" against human "corporations" who "are mining a rare mineral that is key to solving Earth's energy crisis" without regard to Pandora's inhabitants. This "sanctimonious" story line inspired some on the right to attack, and Fox Nation dutifully published the following "review" on December 14:
Yet, only a few short weeks later, on January 4, they're touting the financial success of the film:
So what changed to make Fox Nation so interested in having you see an "America-Hating PC Revenge Fantasy?" Could it have to do with the fact that Avatar was produced by 20th Century Fox?
In case you were wondering how Brit Hume's fellow conservatives were reacting to his statement that Tiger Woods' religion is inadequate, here's Fred Barnes declaring Hume's pronouncement "wise":
Remember: When Fox News apologists have argued over the years that the cable channel's "straight news" reporters -- as opposed to the Hannitys & Becks of the world -- are just like those at any other news outlet, they've tended to point to Brit Hume as an example.
Finally: I haven't been able to find a conservative who regularly rails against "the left's" purported intolerance of religion who has criticized Hume. If you see an example, let me know in the comments.
Back in March, we noted that numerous media figures had highlighted claims that President Obama's "plate" is too "full," suggested he has "bit off more than he can chew." Since the unsuccessful Christmas Day terrorist attack, conservative media figures have taken this meme in a new direction, asserting that the administration was unable to predict the attempted attack because they were too "distracted" by domestic priorities.
Fox & Friends' Gretchen Carlson advanced the theme today, claiming there are "people asking" if the White House was "too distracted" by "health care reform and cap and trade" to properly focus on national security. Similarly, The Washington Times' online poll question of the day asks, "Has President Obama's domestic agenda prevented him from properly addressing the terrorism threat against the United States?" while Joseph Curl's article in the paper uncritically channels the Republican Party's answer of "Yes."
This is ridiculous for any number of reasons (for instance, it seems unlikely that the CIA and State Department didn't keep the alleged terrorist off the plane because they were too busy trying to pass health care), but here's my take: If the Obama administration has been negligent for trying to simultaneously handle issues of domestic policy and national security, how horribly derelict in their duty was the Bush administration?
After all, in the fall of 2001 - in the very months after the September 11 attacks! - the Bush White House was working with congressional leaders on passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, the conference report of which passed in December of that year. America was under attack, and yet the president was busy trying to restructure the national education system!
Then in 2003, the Bush White House was "distracted" pushing a new massive piece of domestic legislation, Medicare Part D. And in 2005, they took their eye off the national security ball to try to "reform" Social Security.
It's amazing we're all still alive. Somehow, the federal government is capable of handling a number of different priorities at the same time. Go figure.
On yesterday's Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz led his panel in a discussion of the media's fascination with tabloid and celebrity stories -- during which Kurtz went out of his way to suggest his disapproval:
KURTZ: As we look back at the press's performance in 2009, there were times when the news business was just swept away by strange and sensational stories. These ranged from the death of world famous celebrities to runaway reality shows to high-profile hoaxes. And they all became Category 5 media storms.
So why do journalists allow themselves to be hijacked by frivolous fair?
let me move on to the creeping influence of the reality show culture.
The media went crazy, Jessica, over the Salahis, the White House party crashers.
What about Richard Heene, the balloon boy's father, or Octomom? I mean, the media just seems magnetically drawn to these freak shows.
I actually think that's a good thing, that we are no longer the sole gatekeepers and people can file online on their Facebook -- but it now seems that we have totally abdicated our leadership and we just follow whatever's hot.
But Kurtz never addressed why he is "magnetically drawn to these freak shows." See, few journalists obsess over celebrity news and scandal and "frivolous fair" as much as Howard Kurtz does. For a while there, it looked like he was going to pitch a tent in Tiger Woods' front lawn, for example. And that came after his months-long obsession with David Letterman (an obsession which continues long after everyone else stopped caring.) If Kurtz really wanted to have a meaningful discussion of the media's focus on these stories, he could kick things off by explaining why he devotes so much attention to them. Instead, he pretended it has nothing to do with him.
I'll put this in terms Kurtz can understand: Howard Kurtz leading a discussion of why the media obsesses over tabloid and celebrity stories without ever once explaining why he obsesses over them is like Tiger Woods giving a speech about why athletes have affairs without ever addressing his own.
TPM reported a few days ago that the Washington Times has pulled the plug on TheConservatives.com, the right-wing paper's laughably redundant effort to highlight conservative opinion:
Brian Faughnan, editor of the site, tells us the Times has officially canceled the project.
The site, rolled out in September, is no longer loading. Its Facebook page stopped updating the morning of Dec 23, as did the site's Twitter feed ("House Blue Dog: We'll Cave on Health Care, Too #tcot #right").
Amid the disintegration of the conservative daily paper, Times management said in a Dec. 2 press release that TheConservatives.com would actually be an area of focus and growth as part of a new online strategy. But the site was conspicuously absent from a news release yesterday on the latest staff departures and the Times' future.
When the Times launched TheConservatives.com back in September, it seemed to undermine claims -- by Howard Kurtz, among others -- that the paper had become more "balanced" since John Solomon took over. For his part, Solomon insisted that the Times was considering following up with a similar site for progressives.
Oh, they're being "considered"? That's just super.
If I was trying overcome my newspaper's well-established history of acting as little more than a mouthpiece for the conservative movement, I probably wouldn't start by launching a web site called TheConservatives.com and promising that later, some day, if there's time, we'll think about adding a site for progressives.
Neither did Eric Boehlert:
Just give the WashTimes a few more weeks and they'll launch its new hub of the progressive movement, TheLiberals.com. And no doubt it will be a joint venture with Center for American Progress, right? It will be the awesome-est tool ever to reinvent the left, right?
Well, actually that kind of site is merely being considered, if you want to get technical about it. But no doubt the Rev. Moon, the self-proclaimed sun of God and WashTimes owner, wants badly to become a major player in the progressive world.
Still, a month later, Solomon insisted that launch of TheProgressives.com was imminent, though the paper apparently didn't own the domain name:
"There'll be a site called www.TheProgressives.com as well," said Solomon. "We'll have it up and running in 2-3 weeks."
According to the domain registration directory WhoIs.com, the domain name was purchased by Domain Asset Holdings of Maryland on January 25, and it is up for sale. TheConservatives.com is owned by The Washington Times. Solomon did not answer a follow-up e-mail about the new site.
But TheProgressives.com never did launch, shocking exactly nobody.
The lesson in all of this is not a new one, but it is worth repeating: When right-wing news organizations like The Washington Times insist that they care about balance, they're lying.
Leave it to super-sleuth Matt Drudge to uncover the obvious:
COLD, COLD, COLDER
And BTW, as we noted recently, here were some weather-related headlines that Drudge--always pushing the gee-it's-cold-today-so-global-warming-must-be-a-hoax line--did not link to:
-"Heatwave puts Moscow's white Christmas on hold"
-"Record warmth and strong winds"
-"Hot summer tipped after record November"
-"Record heat in November"
-"Heat, rainfall records for November in SA"
-"November among warmest on record"
-"Lincoln has record November temperatures
-"November enters record books as seventh warmest on record"
This, from the site that can't read WH visitor's logs, doesn't understand pop culture, can't read polling data, doesn't know what a hate crime is, is clueless about the law, openly mocks Christmas, has trouble reading English, and launched one of the most incompetent smear campaigns in internet history.
And that was just 2009!
So yes, by all means Breitbart & co., please explain to us who's "credible."
UPDATED: Keep in mind that Breitbart's Big Government is a "conservative journalism" site that refuses to post corrections. Although honestly, with that kind of track record, can you blame him? If Breitbart actually acknowledged the site's flood of errors, he'd have to hire a full-time editor just to handle corrections.
UPDATED: P.S. Did Breitbart ever figure out who those community organizers were praying to? (That one never gets old...)
UPDATED: Start the clock running. Since I've critiqued Big Government's substance, or lack thereof, it's only a matter of time before Breitbart responds with a wave of incoherent, name-calling tweets. He never deals with substance. Behold the future of "conservative journalism."
UPDATED: Note that it was Breitbart who sat by quietly on Fox News while fellow, factually-challenged guest Ann Coulter tried to re-launch the Obama-attended-a-madrassa smear.
From Jim Hoft's January 3 Gateway Pundit post, headlined "After Passenger Saves Plane From Terrorist Bombing- New Rules Require Heroic Passengers to Stay Seated During Last Hour of Flight":
It's an Obama World... Up is down, big is small, losing jobs is creating or saving jobs, and heroes are asked to be seated.
Yesterday, Jasper Schuringa, a video director and producer from Amsterdam, told CNN how he helped the cabin crew to subdue Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old who reportedly ignited a small explosive device on board the plane Friday as it prepared to land in Detroit.
In response to this courageous act of heroism, the Obama Administration enacted new policies today. The new rules will force heroic passengers to stay in their seats for the final hour of their flight before landing.
Could I possibly make this stuff up?
Althouse even dreams up how Obama would announce to the country his plans to not run for reelection. Hint: It's completely illogical [emphasis added]:
I should not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing... With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office — the Presidency of your country. Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.
That's right, Althouse thinks Obama won't run for reelection because of "partisan divisions."
UPDATED: Some common sense commentary from National Review Online's Mike Potemra, who's equally perplexed by the right-wing blogosphere's reaction to a single, benign Obama photo:
A picture of Obama and Biden going around on the Internet is attracting some negative comments, but I haven't yet seen any real explanation of how the photo is actually unflattering. To me, the president looks like a tired man with a tough job, having to go to a formal event at the end of the day when he'd rather be at home relaxing, and the James Bond-style crossed legs show he's trying to make the best of his lot. I'd appreciate it someone could explain to me what's so bad about the picture; until then, I will suspect that this is a case of the wish being father to the thought.